Talk:Critical race theory/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

"White supremacy"

I've added a section elsewhere at White supremacy#Academic use of the term, which should help clarify some of the issues recently raised here. I think it's strong and well-cited, and it definitely attributes POV, but a concise statement from someone outraged by the existence of this phrase would possibly be in order for a "balanced" NPOV. I'm boldly linking "white supremacy" on this page to that section.--Carwil (talk) 02:42, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Neo-Marxism

Laughed to see that creep in the lead sentence.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 16:39, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Why is that funny? I'm missing it. Is that in dispute?Davidwhittle (talk) 19:09, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

You miss that the word only serves to scare uninformed people. --93.203.224.155 (talk) 01:40, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Which we know he doesn't.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 03:06, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Hahaha. So if that's its only purpose, why does it lead to an entirely serious Wikipedia article on it and its academic history that sheds additional light on the subject? Davidwhittle (talk) 05:54, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

• Because you are an intelligent person; you didn't see me take neo-marxism out, did you?--Milowent • ^hasspoken 17:35, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for that. Intelligent person struggling to make sense of Wikipedia politics and understand Wikipedia normative culture might better describe me. I'm sure I'm stepping in it right and left. I'm normally a good-humored person, but coming here isn't good for the cheerful side of my soul, I'll tell you that. :-) Davidwhittle (talk) 18:21, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Imagine if every sentence an academic wrote was read and commented on by his colleagues as he wrote it, with little or no faith accorded to their expertise in the subject matter. That's an approximation of wikipedia, at least when it comes to high profile articles. One can write scholarly articles on more obscure topics without drama erupting. Like this article before a week ago.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 20:24, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Good description - that brought my smile back. I would add that the colleagues are hiding behind pseudonyms, ready to gang up on anyone who doesn't think like they do, using every logical error in my book (I literally had a section on logical fallacy and its use in online discussion). :-) Davidwhittle (talk) 20:47, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

"hiding behind pseudonyms" - is a completely inappropriate personal attack. -- The Red Pen of Doom 21:36, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Hardly an "attack" worth mention; its just another adjustment David needs to make to a world where Wikipedia has destroyed Encyclopedia Brittanica. A pseudonymous editor, if they stick around wikipedia long enough, develops an identity through their edits that tells you more than you can learn from their name and address.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 22:38, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

That last one is a very good point, Milowent - although I do think that pseudonym comment was an attack, if a minor one, you are completely right that the identity of a consistent pseudonymous editor totally comes through , whether or not we know the "real" name. I'd know Malik anywhere. Tvoz/talk 23:04, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

So there must be a power structure in Wikipedia. Is it based on seniority or competence or popularity or expertise or authority or what? I've now become very interested in Wikipedia culture, since it so closely parallels the online OS wars I was involved in in the '90s. It seems that certain people here have enough authority to trumpet their obvious bias with impunity here on the talk pages, but then other more reasonable users more authority to actually determine what may stay and what may go. Help me understand. And by the way, the rush to judge my comment - which was a wry observation on the topic of our exchange - as a personal attack would be humorous if it weren't so revealing. The best religious debates over how many angels would fit on the head of a pin can't compare with the relative triviality and imbalance of many of the doctrinal disputes and accusations of heresy going on here. Oops - is that an attack too? My apologies to all those who are anxious to take offense by proactively applying my general comments to themselves. Good thing I have nothing invested in Wikipedia except a layman's desire to see it be more useful to more people and can take this "job" and shove it if I choose. Davidwhittle (talk) 23:40, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Media Mentions

I restored two media mentions that had been removed. The first one is the actual interview that started the controversy. No, O'Brien doesn't mention Wikipedia but she reads directly from this article as it existed at the time without citing Wikipedia as the source. It needs to be there as it is the background of this eruption of interest in the topic of this article. The other is a post at The Daily Caller that points out this issue and others about this article. The reason these are there are not to call attention to them as something important to the article but more as an explanation as to why there may be interest driven towards the editing of the article as a result of these media mentions. That's it, it's not meant to be a judgment or comment on validity of the media mentions. --WGFinley (talk) 16:59, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

see Talk:Critical_race_theory#March_2012_Controversy. We are NOT here to explain to people why some topic comes up in the scandal news. This is an encyclopedia article about CRT. Period. -- The Red Pen of Doom 18:47, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

"scandal news?" Wow. Talk about a viewpoint bias. Are you really blind, RedPen, to the obvious import of the debate over CRT to CRT itself? Then there's also the implications to CRT of the fact that the POTUS taught CRT as a professor, with the possibility that he probably believes at least some elements of CRT? Doesn't that elevate the status of CRT considerably? Or do even its defenders consider CRT indefensible? I honestly don't understand the rush to dismiss the public controversy as being irrelevant to CRT when there is so much valuable information coming out about CRT on both sides of the issue.Davidwhittle (talk) 19:27, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Please don't confuse what should be in the article with the info at the top of this talk page about media attention. These notices there are simply for reference and for information purposes, that is all. It's to help others, who may have no clue about the flurry of attention around this article, get up to speed with what some of the issues are. That's it. I'm really pretty surprised there's this much discussion over simple templates about media mentions of this specific article. --WGFinley (talk) 22:21, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Ok,I understand what your intentions were, and I see you switched to the "press" template which is much better than the "online source" one in terms of my objections, so thanks for making that change. The reason I did not remove the Breitbart.com listing above is that it has their claim that she was quoting Wikipedia (btw, horrors! imagine someone quoting Wikipedia!). As far as I can see, The Daily Caller piece didn't say anything about Wikipedia until these items were posted here, and then they "updated" their article to say that they are mentioned here on this page. It's circular - we shouldn't be their source for publicity about their positions, and we shouldn't be saying that this article is used as a source, unless we have evidence of it - otherwise it's in effect against the spirit of the OR prohibition (even though not really intended for talk pages). As for the actual O'Brien/Pollak video, it's already a source in the article (in the Crugnale citation),and I still think that posting it as mentioning Wikipedia is not accurate, and gives support to the position that it does mention us when it does not - but I'm not going to go to the mats about it. Tvoz/talk 07:56, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

I started the topic originally to highlight the media controversy surrounding CRT itself, not just the article on CRT. Are you saying that when the Wikipedia article itself is in the news, that deserves a section while the controversy about the topic of the article should be ignored? See my comments below. Davidwhittle (talk) 00:25, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

No, that is not what anyone is saying. Tvoz/talk 07:56, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

@Tvoz - pull up the article as it existed at the time of the interview.[1] Watch the clip. Watch O'Brien read verbatim from the article. Checked it myself before I posted the video as media mention here. I'm not going to argue where she got it from, voices in her IFB, why she didn't cite Wikipedia are all editorial issues I'm not getting involved with. The fact is she reads the lead of the article so on an administrative basis I'm noting that here, that's it. Also thanks on the template, it annoyed me too, I was glad I found the better one so they can seed and collapse. --WGFinley (talk) 13:58, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Actually, you dont know she was quoting Wikipedia. There are tons of sites that mirror wikipedia content. And there are frequently times when what is on Wikipedia has been improperly stolen from someplace else and placed verbatim in the Wikipedia article. There are probably a dozen or more sites that have the exact same content as Wikipedia did on the day O'Brien made her comments. -- The Red Pen of Doom 17:33, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

And that changes the fact the content originated from this article how? --WGFinley (talk) 20:14, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

"And there are frequently times when what is on Wikipedia has been improperly stolen from someplace else and placed verbatim in the Wikipedia article." unless you have done more than what you stated, we dont actually know that it did originate here and she was not quoting the original source. -- The Red Pen of Doom 20:29, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Not very likely. It's just a notice at the top of this page that content in this article was on the air, that's it, what's the big deal? --WGFinley (talk) 20:31, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Eight references to President Obama?

I've seen no one cite President Obama as having ever muttered the words "Critical Race Theory". Yet his name appears eight times in the article. This article that purports to describe some obscure socio-cultural discrimination theory is dominated by attempts to both discredit the theory, and to identify President Obama as an adherent to the theory.

One portion of the article is written as if Barack Obama were supporting every word ever spoken, or to be spoken, by Prof. Bell. Yet the context of the "open your minds to his words" introduction is not stated. The rally, introduction, and resulting speech, were in protest of Harvard's minority hiring policy at that time. Does anyone have a source citing that CRT was discussed at this rally?

The full extent of this "political controversy" is driven by one highly-biased website, the radio and cable shows of one highly-biased celebrity, and the politically-charged patrons of these media outlets. This false controversy is more about smearing President Obama than any debate about CRT.

The integrity of this minor article has been compromised by the injection of unrelated data being used to support a partisan political bias. 71.31.217.173 Paul (talk) 01:19, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Paul. Before you make your 19th edit to this section, could you spend a few moment reviewing WP:Forum? Prost! Hammersbach (talk) 02:49, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Had I known anyone was counting, I'd of written, tweaked, and re-tweaked my comments offline prior to posting ;) As to WP:Forum, the only thing pertinent I can ascertain that you might be referring to would be that in addition to stating my issues with the article, that I should also offer what I feel would improve the article? It is my belief, as others have stated, that the entire "Political Controversy" section should be removed, or reduced to one or two sentences. I also feel references to the President are not encyclopedically appropo. 71.31.217.173 (talk) 03:10, 13 March 2012 (UTC) Paul

Paul, may I respectfully submit that your comments (which you have apparently deleted now) were not helpful because they were ad hominem and as highly-biased in their labeling as those you were trying to smear with the labels? I'm leaving this in here so your original context is preserved in light of your subsequent perspectives on the section I 've researched and wrote, believing it to be an important contribution to the readers understanding of CRT. Your point that there needs to be additional documentation about the ties to President Obama is helpful, but your failure to recognize the expository value of the illuminating commentary that has arisen from the controversy, and your resulting suggestion that the entire section I researched be deleted, is not. I made helpful contributions to this article without an agenda except to be helpful to those coming to this article to better understand the issues so they can draw their own conclusions, and to see those with an obvious political bias delete my work without discussion is beyond discouraging. I'm not a Wikipedia expert, but I am a published author of a W.H. Freeman academic book, and I understand bias and editorial abuse when I see it. And I just saw it in the unjustified removal of that entire section. I hope it doesn't happen again.Davidwhittle (talk) 04:26, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

I, respectfully, remain unilluminated. I'm also stymied as to why you brought Latin into this. I may have made an incorrect assumption as to the motive of doubling the size of an article related to a theory on racial discrimination with tenuously related details of the Fox vs Obama controversy du jour, but I fail to see much in the way of personal attacks in my prior posting. I merely point out that the President has never commented on CRT, that there is no evidence that it was dicussed at the Harvard assembly, and therefore the Presidents repeated presence in this article, and the weight given this transient issue, is wholly inappropriate. I'm content that this "dramatically expanded controversy" will suffer a dramatic contraction in a short time and that that will then be reflected in this article.

71.31.217.173 (talk) 06:15, 13 March 2012 (UTC) Paul

I haven't deleted a thing. I've not touched my original post since before Hammersbach's comment, and my reply to him was edited once, 10 seconds after it was posted, removing one duplicated word ("offer"). 71.28.146.251 (talk) 06:29, 13 March 2012 (UTC) Paul

My mistake. So "ad hominem" is not widely understood amongst educated people (which I've assumed I'm dealing with here?) And you've deleted all of the ad hominem betrayals of your bias in your previous posting, so there's no point in either of us continuing to refer to it. I believe what needs to be included to establish the tie to Pres. Obama is Ogletree's introduction of the video at a Harvard screening, where he said “We hid this throughout the 2008

campaign. I don’t care if they find it now.” Surely you recognize the implications of that...166.70.45.120 (talk) 21:32, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Surely, I do not. I can think of multiple reasons why one might make that statement. Some are nefarious, some entirely without malice, and some fall in between. I don't care to speculate or make assertions not borne of fact, such as your statement a few sections up that reads: "a POTUS who apparently adheres to the theory". I'll buy into an argument based upon fact and sound logic, no matter how personally distasteful I may find it. I do refuse to allow someone playing connect-the-dots to plant visions of mushroom clouds in my head. 71.28.146.251 (talk) 23:28, 13 March 2012 (UTC) Paul

Surely you do, Paul - quoting you: "I can think of multiple reasons why one might make that statement. Some are nefarious, some entirely without malice, and some fall in between." If you don't recognize the implications of a statement, how can you categorize the reasons someone would make it? Apparently in addition to including the reference to Ogletree's comment, we should also include the fact that Professor Obama including a Derrick Bell book as required reading in his class. Surely you recognize the import of that (but I repeat myself...)? Davidwhittle (talk) 19:40, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

David, (I assume you are IP 166.70.45.120) I am sure you know, if your research into this matter goes beyond reading the conservative blogs, that Prof. Ogletree has said he was joking. I think you have to do better. And by the way, I also assume you know that the video was on Frontline's site and on YouTube for years, which you neglected to mention. So much for hiding. Tvoz/talk 08:05, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that's me - and yes I've read both sides of the controversy. A lot of what we're seeing is, in my opinion, the blindness of bias to one side of the controversy while taking at face value the other side. To make my personal bias clear, I believe certain portions of CRT, as it has been explained by various sources, and reject other portions of it, as it has been explained by those same and other sources. And I believe most reasonable people, including President Obama, also accept some but not all of the theory. Most of the contention is between what I would categorize as extremists - on both sides. One side would have us believe that CRT is evil and a threat to America and that President Obama is the same - while the other side would have us believe that President Obama doesn't know or care about CRT or that if he does, it's no big deal, because CRT as a whole is non-controversial. I'll state categorically that I reject both sides of the argument. So back to the subject - how well this article meets its objectives. Can someone tell me what the objective of any Wikipedia article is? I probably don't understand it, given what I'm seeing in these debates. Either that, or some of the Wiki-experts have lost sight of it.Davidwhittle (talk) 18:54, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

It's simple: there is no controversy. This is an article about critical race theory, and all sides of any notable debate, discussion, writing, about its content and import should be fairly and neutrally presented, without resorting to unreliable, unobjective sources. But the section about Obama is a false association being promulgated by highly partisan individuals and organizations. It is obvious that what we are seeing on the video has absolutely nothing to do with the content of Bell's theories - Obama was introducing the one person on the faculty with whom he had a natural affinity - their shared racial identities - and the horrifying hug was simply the professor thanking the student for his generous and heartfelt words of introduction. This is so obvious as to be laughable - most people I;ve talked to have been struck by the video only because it shows that 20+ years ago Obama was essentially the same person in his style of speaking, delivery, sense of humor - and it was interesting to see that. Nothing to do with some hidden message that the right are tweezing out of this really innocuous video - innocuous unless you oppose Bell's stance on the embarrassing and damaging lack of female minority tenured professors in particular, and in general the unacceptable lack of diversity among the faculty. None of that belongs in an article on CRT as it has nothing to do with CRT. The right have taken this video and tried to turn the discussion into one about this theory which they don;'t even understand, and painting Obama as some kind of radical standard-bearer for the theory - all because he hugged the guy and said nice words about him and agreed with him that there should have been more than one black professor at the school. I don't know, and you don't know, what Obama thought then or thinks now about CRT, and seeing as it is so widely studied, it would hardly be damning if he thinks it is a useful construct. So do lots and lots and lots of legal scholars, which is why Derrick Bell was so well-respected and admired, for his scholarly contributions that live on. So what? It is absurd and the whole thing should come out of here. I've now said this several times in several ways, and I see no point in continuing the back and forth with you - you seem to be the only one insisting on this being here, you don't get it, and I think it's time to move on. Tvoz/talk 08:53, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for at least attempting to reason this out, although I disagree that I'm the only "insisting on this [what?] being here" and the one who "doesn't get it." Let's stay focused on the issues, shall we? I happen to agree with a lot of what you say in your most recent post above. You nicely describe my response to the video, which was "So what's the big deal? Obama's a nice guy and making a generous introduction to one of his professors." But what interested me about the kerfuffle was the assertion of another Obama friend (Ogletree) that the video had been suppressed during the campaign. I have extensive experience with the media and connections in the media (check me out on Linkedin if you wish) - I use my real identity in these discussions - and so I came to this article seeking to learn more about Bell and CRT and if and why the media may have had reasons to suppress Obama's connections to Bell and CRT. When I failed to find anything remotely helpful to understanding CRT here or its implications, I started researching other sources. Guess what? The best sourcing and explanations can be found on places you've already dismissed as unreliable. I'm an independent, socially liberal but fiscally conservative, and liked Obama because he promised to be a uniter (which was apparently empty rhetoric), but I think how you and others dismiss conservative thought as uninformed, Breitbart.com as unreliable, and so on is unconscionably biased. If you believe the right don't understand CRT, then this article is the place to say what they say about it and present a better understanding of it in contrast, so that someone coming to this article to learn more about CRT, as I did, doesn't leave thinking that Wikipedia is biased and worthless in helping them understand - as I did. You miss the obvious - there are two sides to this controversy and a middle. The right alleges that the left is actively suppressing information about CRT and Bell and Obama and attempting to redefine and promote CRT. The left (and you) allege that the right doesn't understand CRT and are attempting to make something of nothing. So what bothers me is that rather than present both sides, you and others think the appropriate response to the controversy for this article is to simply side with the left and suppress information you think is unreliable and without meaning, even though that's the primary point of the other side. That simply begs the whole question. So if not here, where should a reasonable person go who is trying to understand CRT and gather verifiable facts about Derrick Bell and to make sense of the right's campaign? That's my purpose for being involved here - to help seekers of information find the best information available presented in a fair manner - what's yours? Davidwhittle 17:12, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

One should not come to Wikipedia, an encyclopedia, to find out about the current political muckraking. If they come to Wikipedia, they should find an encyclopedic article about the concept of "Critical race theory" that details what the tenants are and how it has impacted the world of social theories. You know, encyclopedic content. -- The Red Pen of Doom 17:17, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

TVoz, in light of the exchange here, what do you make of yesterday's editorial in Investor Business Daily titled "If Obama's Past Isn't a Concern, Why Cover It Up?" It goes far beyond anything we've discussed so far and makes your position less defensible, but it especially makes it impossible to argue that the controversy is too limited in scope to be credible. I for one will be watching with fascination to see it and the subsequent efforts here and elsewhere in Wikipedia to suppress the emerging facts and views and how they fit into the bigger picture. Davidwhittle (talk) 19:30, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

So one more thing - what is the appropriate Wikipedia article or articles where it would be appropriate to represent fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources about this particular matter? You can no longer argue that it has failed to gain traction outside of the muckraking right wing, unless of course that includes in your mind sources such as Investor Business Daily or Townhall (see http://townhall.com/columnists/benshapiro/2012/03/14/why_the_bellobama_connection_matters). Davidwhittle (talk) 19:30, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

If you don't think Townhall.com and the editorial page of IBD are part of the right-wing echo chamber, you need to recalibrate your compass. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 19:40, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

You'll have to forgive me, Malik Shabazz - I continue to be seriously mislead by the apparently broken compass of NPOV - which requires, again, for your consideration, "representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." So is it the consensus then, of Wikipedians, that the views of the "right-wing echo chamber" (as you define it) are unreliable views that are unworthy of consideration and fall outside the range of views covered by NPOV? Davidwhittle (talk) 21:35, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

You wrote that this nonsense has "gain[ed] traction outside of the muckraking right wing, unless of course that includes in your mind sources such as Investor Business Daily or Townhall". If you don't recognize the "muckraking right wing" slant of Townhall or the editorial page of IBD, I'm afraid I can't help you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:46, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

IMPROVEMENT OF CRT

A case could be made that the critical race theory in vogue is that all alleged races may have separatist and selfish agenda structure, except white persons. Thus blacks & latinos may have their own specialized chambers of commerce, police dept orgs, fire dept orgs, beauty contests, etc; but white persons may not. IMHO after the great rejection of racism & movement towards integration in the 1960's, the general white population adopted an integrationist mentality, a desire to be color-blind & just consider everyone members of one human race. Then multi-culturism reared its ugly head & it was back towards a unilateral segregation again, justified under the rubrics of multi-culturism and affirmative action. We now have public-licensed TV stations having like contests for recognition of the Latin Hero, as if no one can be nominated for "hero" unless he speaks Spanish or is of Hispanic descent. How long will it be before a reaction sets in, & white people declare: Well, we tried to be color-blind; we wanted to end racism; but since the blacks & Hispanics now insist on thinking in racist terms & seeking the welfare of their own groups, we are forced to form White Groups which correspond & follow the same agenda. (EnochBethany (talk) 17:47, 13 March 2012 (UTC))

This isn't a forum to discuss critical race theory. Do you have constructive suggestions about how to improve the article? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 19:20, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia's purpose and NPOV as it relates to Recent Edits on this article

Wikipedia's purpose is to act as an encyclopedia, a comprehensive written compendium that contains information on all branches of knowledge.

Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view. NPOV is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia and of other Wikimedia projects. This policy is non-negotiable and all editors and articles must follow it.

I've stated previously that I believe that what is happening here is in serious violation of NPOV, but now I can see that it is also in violation of the fundamental purpose of Wikipedia. Here is my reasoning: 1) CRT is a legitimate topic of academic discussion. 2) The current POTUS is an academician who has taught about CRT. 3) Even if there are political implications, the public debate about an academic theory deserves a place in an article about that theory, consistent with NPOV as described above, even if such debate has political implications, ESPECIALLY if one side of the controversy and their assertion that the suppression of information about the theory and one of its originators and the related relationship with the POTUS is an important element of the controversy.

If one side says "We think CRT is X and its divisive and we disagree with that and it matters because the POTUS believes it and the other side is suppressing information about his association with it" and the other side is saying "CRT is Y and it's just a theory and the President isn't associated with it so this whole discussion is a big deal out of nothing" - then how, pray tell, can you represent that controversy "fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources" when you exclude the controversy altogether or minimize the sourcing that comes from the originator of the controversy?

Will someone please address the above logic? If I'm off-base, I sincerely want to understand why anyone thinks otherwise.

In many cases, what I'm seeing is the use of minor points of "Wikipedia doctrine" being used to justify neglect of the purpose of Wikipedia and its "fundamental principle" as expressed above.

I wish I had unlimited time to fight this battle, but I don't. Can someone explain to me what I can do to prevent repeatedly unjustifiable edits being made to the carefully researched content I spent several hours writing for the benefit of Wikipedia readers? In good faith, I addressed every legitimate concern being made here by the early editors, only to see people/editors with an obvious agenda wander in and ruthlessly strip out critical pieces shedding light on CRT and the controversy, oftentimes by using ad hominem attacks on sources and presumptions and biased rationale as reasons for the edits, many of which look to me to be giant steps backwards in fundamental violation of the purpose of Wikipedia and inconsistent with its "fundamental principle." Before I spend the time necessary for further editing to further improve things, I need a better understanding of what points of "Wikipedia doctrine" I can rely on to avoid spending ridiculous amounts of time defending my contributions against sadly biased editing. IMO, just because several editors with clearly identifiable bias agree on something doesn't give them the right to edit my work without first addressing their concerns to me here in Talk, and then addressing the points I make in response before making "improvements" that aren't. I'm a little annoyed because I started in here in good faith, confident in my research and writings skills, and my ability to fairly shed light on an important controversy, only to watch in dismay as people carrying an ax to grind have hacked away at my work with impunity. Thanks to anyone who can offer assistance in good faith. Davidwhittle (talk) 00:18, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

You may not have noticed this, but presidents speak about a lot of things. that does not mean that their particular perspective about that "thing" is important, and other peoples opinions about the presidents opinions about a topic generally mean even less. -- The Red Pen of Doom 02:19, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

What is so unusual or controversial about CRT? I'm old enough to have seen a few of the last "White Only" signs in Tennessee. Lynchings still took place when I was a kid. Might the social system in effect at that time, and for many generations prior, be termed "White Supremacy"? Are there institutionalized remains of racism still extant today? Good question. I believe there is some merit to CRT. Racism in America has generated many movements that were far more radical, and individuals whom were far more frightening, than the former Dean of the Harvard Law School.

The brief and superficial discussion involving O'Brien did nothing to expand the definition or understanding of CRT. Her page would be a more appropriate place for it, if it is deemed of any real value to that article.

CRT has been around for decades and nothing in the last month has changed what it is. Derrick Bell's writings have been around for decades and occurances this month have not changed what they are. President Obama attended Bell's classes decades ago and there is no tangible evidence that he is a proponent of CRT.

The concensus here, and from all but one sector of the media, seems to be that there is no "bombshell" controversy. Concensus is (supposed to be) the rule on Wikipedia. 71.28.146.251 (talk) 03:23, 15 March 2012 (UTC) Paul

Ok, and I am chuckling a bit here (not meaning to be snarky)... am I the only who sees the irony in the comment above? On one hand the editor states, “I believe there is some merit to CRT.”, and then proclaims later, “there is no tangible evidence that (Obama) is a proponent of CRT.” It is comments like this, and a few others (see the section on Neo-Marxism, hilarious!), that have me stepping back from this article for the time being. Hey, let’s keep it short, keep it sweet, and keep it encyclopedic. Hammersbach (talk) 04:29, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

I state my belief that as there may yet be ingrained racism in our system, I am unwilling to completely dismiss CRT out of hand. I don't classify it as particularily radical. In a separate paragraph, I reiterate my feeling that, regardless of the increasingly negative portrayal of CRT, there is no valid linkage justifying the inclusion of President Obama in the article. Personally, I fail to see the contradiction. 71.28.146.251 (talk) 05:10, 15 March 2012 (UTC) Paul

And yes, I found the comment insulting, as well as incoherant. 71.28.146.251 (talk) 05:21, 15 March 2012 (UTC) Paul

It is obvious that an effective smear campaign has to both make CRT appear akin to Satanism, and then put Obama in bed with it. The first sentence you quoted addresses that first point. I attempt to counter recent edits that have placed "neo-Marxist" in the lead sentence, that have greatly expanded the criticism section, added long quotes from persons like conservative radio talk show host Ben Shapiro. The other line you quote pertains to the second requirement, the weakest part of the smear, one with no factual basis. It took me a while to figure out how you may have misconstrued my intent. You thought I'd said "CRT is cool with me!" and then followed it with "Obama is innocent of this crime!". If the President gave a speech tomorrow advocating CRT, I'd still feel the same about him, and the same about CRT. It's a purely technical issue. Since no one has shown Obama has anything to do with the wonderful CRT, he does not merit his name all over this article. 71.28.146.251 (talk) 05:58, 15 March 2012 (UTC) Paul

So Paul, your answer is to eliminate one side of the controversy, and ignore my opening comments. I get it. You're biased and can't even address my plea that you address my points.

And in relation to "No one has shown Obama has anything to do with the wonderful CRT?" Either you're not paying attention or haven't researched it or refuse to accept any "right wing" source as reliable. Obama took classes from Professor Bell, and made one of Bell's books required reading in his class. That's irrelevant? Davidwhittle (talk) 06:11, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

We're dealing with an editor who chooses not to hear what everybody else is saying. So why waste the electrons? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:33, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

You're bringing out that canard again, Malik Shabazz? After I've BEGGED people to address my reasoning directly, especially in relation to the purpose of Wikipedia and fundamental principle of NPOV, explained my thinking at length, cutting back my original lengthy entry dramatically, and editing it multiple times to address every reasonable concern expressed, even before you came along and recklessly substituted a two-line biased comment with one-sided sourcing for a lot of hard work that was still in progress, not just by me, but others as well, and you think I'm choosing not to hear what everybody else is saying? Wow. You make it difficult for me to continue to assume good faith on your part. Davidwhittle (talk) 05:44, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

The silence is deafening. Lots of noise, but not one person has directly addressed the points I made at the beginning of this section. Everyone's simply throwing gorilla dust. Davidwhittle (talk) 06:16, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps your concerns should be taken to Harvard Law School, NYU Law and the other places Professor Bell taught, where Obama, and hundreds and hundreds of other law students, took his classes - yes, that is why they had him on their faculties: to teach their students. Barack Obama is guilty of the crime of taking classes with a prominent professor, yes, and then teaching what he learned. And you also have a bone to pick with Wolters Kluwer, the current publishers of his seminal book Race, Racism and American Law, now in its sixth edition, continually in print since 1973. You have told us you are a published author - I am sure you can guess what it would mean to have a book in its sixth edition, in print for almost 40 years. Thousands and thousands of students have read his work, and thousands of professors have "made it required reading" in their classes - no doubt some very prominent ones, likely some in government in the past and now. Should they all be listed in this article? Do you seriously suggest that reading and teaching a theory make one a proponent of it? Mike Godwin forgive me, but we better be worried about history professors teaching classes on Hitler too.

The simple truth is that the right wing is once again looking for anything they can find to smear Obama, and Breitbart's cohort utterly failed in this latest attempt because it was absurd - the first black president of the Harvard Law Review hugged the first black tenured professor in his law school, when introducing him at an event that had absolutely ZERO to do with critical race theory, and had everything to do with trying to make it so that they were not the outliers, but were a part of a diverse faculty and student body. And this should go in an article about the professor's theoretical contribution to the field of law? This line is pathetic, and you need to give it up already. You have no support, as should be obvious to you by now.

One other point - you've several times mentioned your distress at people editing "your" work - I know how frustrating it can be to have other people changing, removing, rearranging, misunderstanding words you've contributed to an article here. But that is the way it works - a few lines below this screen it says, every time you edit, "If you do not want your writing to be edited, used, and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here." No matter how much work you put into it. Evenif you single-handedly write an entire article. So this may not be the best venue for you to get your ideas out into the world - the one thing you can be sure of, especially on a fast-moving article, is that whatever you add will likely be different the next time you look at it. Collaborative writing is one of the five pillars of Wikipedia: "...no editor owns any article; all of your contributions can and will be mercilessly edited...". Mercilessly. That is not going to change. Tvoz/talk 07:38, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

I get it on the editing. I also get that the uneducated, ignorant, and biased have the power to delete anything they don't like and then fail to defend it with reasonable arguments - at least the end result of the messiness is often times helpful. But I do appreciate your efforts to help me understand. But I'm not advocating any position or trying to get my ideas out there - on the contrary, when I talk about my work, I'm talking about the efforts I made to find and capture and share references and sources that I find helpful and believe others will find helpful. So I see all of the efforts to counter those efforts through deletion of half of my references (leaving only one-side of the controversy intact) to be out of harmony with the spirit of Wikipedia. Davidwhittle (talk) 17:24, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

What you're talking about in your first paragraph above is what I'm talking about when I say that there should be MORE information in the article, not less. Your reasoning is spot on. If we fail to present both sides honestly and fairly here, then where are the uninformed going to go to get their information about the controversy? I'm simply baffled that you and others would rather feed the suppression talk than rebut it. Davidwhittle (talk) 17:31, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

While there should be more about Critical Race Theory in the article, there should not be more elevating of desperate media attempts to gain public viewing by flaming of "controversies" by people who have no actual background, academic understanding or respected knowledge about the topic. More for the simple sake of quantity without actual quality is not helpful to the article or the reader.-- The Red Pen of Doom 17:53, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm...anyone else see today's Investor Business Daily editorial? Anything in here that might be relevant to this discussion? http://news.investors.com/article/604330/201203141813/documentary-designed-to-shield-obama-from-past.htm Davidwhittle (talk) 18:26, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Are you thick or are you being intentionally obtuse? What does the editorial have to do with enhancing a reader's understanding of critical race theory? You know, after all, that's the purpose of this article, not to serve as a platform for your nonsense. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 18:36, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

This from someone who's not using their real name here and rather uses (shares) the name of someone with a vested interest in doing exactly what you're doing? Davidwhittle (talk) 18:42, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

With an interest in keeping off-topic nonsense out of a Wikipedia article? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 18:43, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

You betray your extreme bias by calling it nonsense. Davidwhittle (talk) 18:44, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

It is nonsense. It has nothing to do with critical race theory, which is the subject of this article. Why don't you peddle your wares at Criticism of Barack Obama or CNN controversies? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 18:48, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

You're so blinded by your bias ('peddle [my] wares'????) that you can't see that if CRT is believed by the President, that's important to include in the article on CRT; or if CRT opponents are attempting to discredit CRT for political purposes, it's important to establish the viewpoint that CRT is not so radical that it should be used to discredit a President. NPOV requires both views, remember? But thanks for the pointers to other articles where I can learn more and possibly contribute. 166.70.45.120 (talk) 19:21, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

By all means, David, look at those articles. but bear in mind, please, that the Obama articles are covered by arbcom probation terms, meaning there is zero tolerance for edit warring and the like - I suggest you discuss on Talk there before posting. Just some friendly advice from a veteran. Tvoz/talk 20:36, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Malik Shabazz doesn't see any relevance to any of the discussions here. Anyone else see anything? Davidwhittle (talk) 18:46, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

What i see is User:Davidwhittle attempting to WP:COATRACK "controversy" into an article and practicing WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. -- The Red Pen of Doom 19:48, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Oh yes, I see something - having been editing articles here about controversial, often political, figures since 2006, it never ceases to amaze me how predictable people pushing an agenda are: invariably, when I see someone claiming that they actually like Obama, in fact they themselves are liberal or at least independent, it follows like winter from autumn that they will then turn around (this time just over an hour later) and post something that is more negative and even vicious than some of their previous posts in which they claimed to be just trying to be neutral. I wondered when Saul Alinsky would be brought into this - bingo, there he is. The "editorial" you posted a link to is an irrelevant screed, smearing Obama, the media, academia - ("the parlor Bolsheviks inside the Beltway media and the Ivory Tower"). I'm sorry, David, I've tried to be respectful and reason with you, but if this is where you get your inspiration - as I suspected all along - you seem to be motivated by something quite different from the neutral pursuit of a balanced presentation. I don't know if you actually agree with the garbage spewed in that piece, but you posted it - I have read hundreds of blog posts over the years, some on the far left that go too far (but rarely quite as personally vicious as the extremes on the right,I must say) and I would not link to them in a discussion that they were only marginally if at all applicable to. You did, and I believe that betrays an agenda that you're been pursuing here under the guise of just trying to improve knowledge.

And while I'm at it, just to clarify my comments above: yes, yes, yes, as I said, of course I am in favor of including reliably sourced explications of what crt is about and responsible critiques of it - as is Malik, and Red Pen of Doom, and all serious editors here. But not what I see as crackpot theories about an imagined secret plot to hide the president's "true" nature and beliefs, that are logical fallacies: he believes x, but he has a secret agenda to not reveal that he believes x so you won't find any evidence that he believes it because he is hiding it, which proves that he believes it. That, in essence is the garbage that has been thrown at Obama since he started his campaign in 2007 - and believe me, I saw it here on an hourly basis as I was editing the suite of 2008 election articles for people of both parties, from Thompson, McCain, Paul, Romney, other Republicans to Obama, Hillary, Edwards, and other Democrats. Frankly, although it doesn;t surprise me, it does make me want to throw up, in the immortal words of Rick Santorum. So yes, I favor removing the entire section about this bombshell video with that horrifying hug and laudatory praise of a courageous scholar who was willing to put his beliefs ahead of his personal interests, and the accusation that Soledad O'Brien was quoting Wikipedia, a crime against nature, according to those neutral sources you so want to shoehorn into this article, your friends at Breitbart. Right, none of it belongs here - what belongs here are independent, neutral, reasoned, scholarly explications of the theory, pro and con. It's been around for a long time, and taught in law schools across the country for years by non-Bolsheviks to thousands of students. It's a theoretical construct, a way of looking at experiences and facts, and you and those you are trying to promote are distorting what should be a straightforward article about a theory. Your insistence on seeing this as some kind of actual controversy, including the hug, or the "open your hearts and minds" oratory, as if it had some deep significance, is what the problem is. There is no significant public controversy, except in the minds of the right as far as I have seen so far. Tvoz/talk 20:36, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Oh, wow, you nailed me. How could I possibly have had the temerity to think that editorial had any relevance to your original point here in this section and might be worthy of serious consideration by a reasonable person? So tell me, Tvoz, with all that experience with political articles, what attracted you to this apolitical topic and article, and when did you first post here? I came here trying to learn more about CRT, and when I saw the intellectual dishonesty in the attempts to sanitize the article, I decided to try to help make it more fair. Your attempts to impugn my intellectual integrity notwithstanding, the fact that you first posted here after the controversy started, the way you describe conservatives and conservative sources, your obvious agenda that perfectly aligns with the agenda of only one side of the controversy, your ironic admission that you've been involved in a wide variety of political articles (me? zero), and your readily apparent and repeated dismissal of an entire spectrum of thought here leaves no doubt whatsoever about your agenda and your extreme bias in service of that agenda.Davidwhittle (talk) 21:36, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Your snarkiness aside, David, if you read my user page you'd see that one of the things I've done here for almost 6 years and 23,000 edits is look at recent deaths and people in breaking news stories - where I expect there will be increased traffic coming in - to patrol those pages for the inevitable vandalism and to improve the text for clarity, content, sourcing, improved expression, organization, etc., so we don't embarrass ourselves with inadequate articles. I've done such work on articles from Maurice Gibb to Kim Jong-il, Gaby Giffords to Dominique Strauss-Kahn, etc = no agenda. When the video story broke I went to the article on Derrick Bell and did some organization work there, and came here to check on some point, and found a disproportionate section here that obfuscated and distorted the reality of what the video depicted, and i attempted to fix it, which I am still attempting to do. That does not reflect an agenda on my part, other than my fury at vandals who make work for others, and my desire to put our best foot forward. As for the articles about political figures, they range from Barack Obama to Ron Paul to Nancy Reagan, and many others. I've been accused of being a "loyal supporter of the Republican Party" and someone who has a "strong anti-Republican Party POV", in the same thread. I've been at this for a long time, I've been interviewed about my Wikipedia work, my edits speak for themselves - sorry you don't like it, but I will call out blatantly biased sources like that IBT screed any time I see them, and won't stand by for deliberate distortion to make a point. Tvoz/talk 08:14, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Recent Obama-related stuff

I've deleted it as it seems to be somebody's attempt to slur a politician by association. At best this is a sideshow to a sideshow in the current US election campaign. Maybe it should be covered at the Breitbart article or whatever, but it's utterly irrelevant to the theory. --TS 01:13, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

That deletion was just plain disrespectful to all the editors who have been working on this article, and discussing it, regardless of your take on it. Hammersbach (talk) 01:23, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

A bold edit does not imply disrespect. The material does not belong here. --TS 01:35, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Hear hear! — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 01:54, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I would agree with you that “a bold edit does not imply disrespect.” However, this issue has been discussed by multiple editors on both sides of the equation, and rather extensively. For you to come in and capriciously delete all the material simply because, in your opinion, “ the material does not belong here” is, in fact, disrespectful of all the previous editors who have taken the time and consideration to state their reasoning prior to making “bold” edits on what has clearly become a contentious issue. Please do feel free to present your case to the all the editors who are actively participating in act of consensus. It is the courteous thing to do. Hammersbach (talk) 02:05, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Counting hands, one side of the equation consists of about 10 editors who feel the section is either entirely unwarranted, or should consist of one or two neutral sentences. The other side of the equation encompasses one insistent editor. Or, maybe it is now two. I've been researching Race, Racism, and American Law. Now in it's sixth edition, it apparently has been for decades THE academic casebook for decisions involving race. Googling past 10 pages of blogosphere hysteria, and the list of law schools listing it as curriculum is impressive. There are multiple sources stating it is used in civics courses as well. I've yet to find it described as a manifesto on CRT. Following the logic of allowing this section in the article, we could improve the article that much more by compiling a list of prominent persons in the last 40 years who either taught, or attended courses where Race, Racism, and American Law was included (whether or not the book promotes CRT). I'm sure the list would be lengthy, and that readers understanding of the theory would be greatly enhanced. 71.28.146.251 (talk) 02:48, 16 March 2012 (UTC) Paul

Hey Paulie, out of curiosity who’s the second editor that you refer to? Golly, I trust you are not trying to imply it's me, are you?[2] [3] Anyway, as I read your little note, I can’t but help but be struck by the fact that most of you write about has absolutely nothing to do with this section. Are you sure you meant to write it here? Just trying to be helpful...  :) Hammersbach (talk) 03:43, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Paul's comment seems on point to me - one of the Breitbart-inspired arguments presented by David about what they see as the damning connection of Obama to Bell, and therefore the burning need to expose it in this article about an academic theory, is "Obama took classes from Professor Bell, and made one of Bell's books required reading in his class" and "Obama's inclusion of a Bell book in his curriculum" and "we should also include the fact that Professor Obama including a Derrick Bell book as required reading in his class", etc. I may have missed others - Paul's point seems to me to be that many many students have studied Bell's work, and many many faculty have assigned his book that has been in print for almost 40 years, so perhaps revelation of some of those names would put the "bombshell" that Obama did so into its proper perspective. So I would add that having a section here that focuses on Obama, based on that innocuous video, is out of place and an attempt to smear Obama for political reasons. Tvoz/talk 05:52, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

So as for Tony's removal of the section - I think it was correct to do so, and consistent with the overwhelming sense of the editors who indeed have been discussing this here, going round and round and no one convincing the outlier or vice versa. I support the deletion and think we should do it and move on. Tvoz/talk 06:05, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Besides myself, every one of the following have commented on the section in question at various points and have made helpful suggestions and/or edits: ChrisB, Kerani, WGFinley, Hammersbach, Milowent. Am I the only one seeing bias in the way those who are claiming consensus most loudly (Tvoz, Malik Shabbaz, Paul, and RedPen) distort the nature of the consensus the claim and the way they describe the views of the right and the right itself? Davidwhittle (talk) 06:51, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Excuse me, David, I didn't make constructive edits and suggestions? That's not what you said several times upstream, and I am not going to bother hunting down the diffs because you know what you wrote. At first I thought we might be ok here with a short section revised to accurately reflect what is shown in that video, but as the days have gone on and the matter not turned into the public controversy that was hoped for by some - and as it became more clear that this is recentism and has a handful of other policy/guideline problems, I reached the same conclusion that Tony Sidaway did, before he made his edit. As for my descriptions of rightwing blogs and that IBT editorial as being biased, POV and unacceptable sources, that is exactly right. You'll notice I haven't suggested using leftwing blogs or biased sources from the left, and have made the point that they are often just as unacceptable. So stop distorting what is in front of you. The consensus I see is to severely limit or eliminate the section, but I am interested in what others think. I'm supporting eliminating, you're supporting expanding. How about letting the other editors speak for themselves rather than characterizing their work or positions or denigrating mine? (By the way, I do think Milowent's edit improved the presentation, but I still question the inclusion of this here at all.) Tvoz/talk 08:34, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Just to add in (and be counted :) ): This material is essentially a coatrack for including Obama. The CRT substance is that two right-wing commentators criticized CRT (and perhaps that other commentators disagreed). The Obama material belongs in a very small expansion of Derrick Bell (his protest campaigns at Harvard may be notable enough for their own article, but Obama's speech and hug are tiny, tiny piece of that story).

The "media controversy" is a small portion of overall coverage of CRT in the mass media: of 193 newspaper stories since 1993 on LexisNexis, none consider the new material (in fact, there is an equal sized "flurry" about CRT and the ethnic studies ban in Arizona in newspaper coverage). Only television transcripts and LexisNexis-indexed blogs really show a spike in recent coverage (2 of 53 magazine articles since 1993 are on the new controversy, but 40-odd of 103 indexed blog posts, and 9 of 22 TV transcripts; both of these latter categories may be newer additions to LexisNexis cataloging).

As I've said before, much such controversy does not belong on the page defining an area of study, as the example of Human evolution should illustrate clearly. An episode conjoining a politician and an advocate of that politically controversial theory (even one publicized by outraged creationists in the media) does not an encyclopedic fact make.--Carwil (talk) 13:49, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

• I like whoever continued to improve the Huggate section (and I agree it really has no place in this article though I made an effort to make it less crazy whilst it exists), especially the addition of the Jon Stewart paragraph. I'm off to the Sean Hannity article now to add a paragraph about his apparent extremely radical tendencies; we must protect the children!--Milowent • ^hasspoken 13:59, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

When I originally added this section, my purpose was to demonstrate that CRT had entered the national debate, and to present both points of view about its expanding influence in America. I've been puzzled to watch the debate here unfold, which doesn't have any resemblance whatsoever to the intellectual debates I've had over the years with serious editors publishing my books, one of which was used as a textbook by Duke in their "Internet and Public Policy" class. Here, irrelevance and gorilla dust abounds, few are willing to address or discuss the key issues, doctrinal disputes take priority over the core purpose of Wikipedia and the core principal of NPOV, people apparently uninvolved and unread wander in and delete entire sections, and well, you all know what happens here, and why, much better than I do. I don't like the section the way it is either - it's much different than the one I created. How about let's look at a 3rd Alternative (HIGHLY recommended reading, by the way - by Stephen R. Covey) - what if we trim the section on media mention to two or three pertinent sentences, which IS, it seems to me, the consensus about it - and add a section on the influences of CRT? Would anyone deny that it has had a serious influence, independent of the debates over the nature of those influences? Davidwhittle (talk) 16:35, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

• David, a section on the influence of CRT seems appropriate, but not this baloney about influence-by-hug.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 18:49, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

That's progress, then. You're right, the idea that conclusions can be drawn from that video or Obama's introduction of Bell, or that either of those are anything more than indicators of the respect Obama had for Bell, and vice-versa, is indeed baloney. What interests me, though, and I think most honest observers, far more is the relationship between Obama's administration of his office in a manner that is demonstrably different than previous Presidents, and the influence of CRT on those differences. For example, looking at New Black Panther Party voter intimidation case, the decisions of Holder's Justice Department make more sense to a white guy like me who believes in the King ideal of judging by the content of character rather than the color of skin, when viewed through the lens of Critical Race Theory. One side of this controversy is asserting that CRT is having an influence and that influence is being hidden and suppressed because it would presumably have explosive implications, and the other side isn't really denying that CRT is having an influence - they just want the issue to go away because even if CRT IS having an influence, it shouldn't be explosive. So let's say that we all agree that it shouldn't be explosive (which is, by the way, an inappropriately normative judgment). Are we being intellectually honest, then, and consistent with NPOV, in our cooperative efforts to excise all references to those views that might be explosive but shouldn't be? I found the Investor's Business Daily editorial and its basic point that "If Obama's Past is Not a Concern, Why Cover It Up?" and its collection of facts and reasonable inferences, including those that position CRT within a broader framework of influence on the President, to be far more serious in its implications, apparently, than anyone else here who has read it. But the concern I have in wanting to know more about that influence is one that is, I guarantee you, widely shared. So when I come here and see that the exact same attempts to cover up and minimize the controversy over that influence and the role of CRT in society, my eyebrows go up. So my confidence in the good faith of everyone here would go up dramatically if we could find a way within the context of this article to agree on the means whereby the legitimate issues of the relationship between Obama's intellectual heritage are raised and addressed. Thought experiment: if it was discovered, while George W Bush was President, that he had attended a church where radical anti-Muslim teaching was common, and had introduced a knowledgeable speaker at an anti-sharia rally, and had studied Constitutional Law at Yale from a professor who thought that the Constitution was a Christian document that guaranteed freedom of religion only for Christians, would you take the same position about those issues being too petty and the associations being too shallow? Davidwhittle (talk) 19:54, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

That has a lot to do with the politics of the United States, but what does it have to do with critical race theory as a legal theory? Absolutely nothing. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:01, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

• (ec)To the extent we are getting into WP:OR, this isn't stuff that's appropriate for any Wikipedia article though. If scholars and newspapers publish articles about alleged CRT influence on the obama adminstration, perhaps then. But as of now, there is no "means whereby the legitimate issues of the relationship between Obama's intellectual heritage are raised and addressed" as to CRT. That OR issue, aside, its not as if Obama is the first black elected official; personally I think its utter baloney that CRT has anything to do with Obama. Did Obama even take a CRT course from Bell? How did John Rawls of Harvard affect Obama? Its just silly.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 20:25, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

"What interests me, though, and I think most honest observers, far more is the relationship between Obama's administration of his office in a manner that is demonstrably different than previous Presidents, and the influence of CRT on those differences." - and nothing in the article is suitable to support that without LONG WALKS through the land of WP:OR. O'Brien, Pollack and Stewart are about as distinctly unqualified to be making an actual analysis as nearly anyone you could pick off the street. -- The Red Pen of Doom 20:37, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Have you read this? http://news.investors.com/article/604330/201203141813/documentary-designed-to-shield-obama-from-past.htm Doesn't Investor's Business Daily qualify as a newspaper and a reliable source, or does the content of their editorial automatically disqualify it as a reliable source, as has been asserted in relation to Breitbart.com and other "right-wing scandal sheets?" Davidwhittle (talk) 21:45, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

No i haven't. but i have a hard time believing that an opinion piece in a financial paper should be one of the places we go looking for information about an esotertic branch of the social science field. that seems kind of like going to look for dessert in a cow pasture. you may find "pies", but they are not really something that would satisfy your desire. -- The Red Pen of Doom 22:00, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

That's an editorial worthy of the current Washington Times!. While IBD has decent financial coverage, its also the editorial outfit that said Stephen Hawking would be dead if subjected to UK health care, even though he lives in the UK and gets national health care. I didn't realize they had regular editorials that would make David Lawrence ("the 14th amendment was never ratified") proud. But in any event, this editorial makes no mention of Critical Race Theory by name or description, so its not helpful to this article.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 03:10, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, OK, then, I'm getting the picture. So how about this: http://chronicle.com/blogs/innovations/bell-epoque/31897 ? Davidwhittle (talk) 03:50, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't know. Is that a scholarly peer review, or an agenda-driven attack? Peter Wood is the president of NAS http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Association_of_Scholars How many anti-CRT citings are required to offset the absence of any quotations supporting CRT? 71.28.146.251 (talk) 15:39, 17 March 2012 (UTC) Paul

Someone upstream said "If scholars and newspapers publish articles about alleged CRT influence on the obama adminstration, perhaps then." So I cited both a newspaper and a scholar alleging radical influences on the Obama administration (you can't separate CRT from Bell, can you?), in the context of the debate over Bell and CRT raised by Breitbart.com, and yet instead of being able to have a reasonably informed discussion, the editorial is attacked for having a viewpoint "worthy of the Washington Times!" (so I guess that the Washington Times isn't considered a valid source either? Talk about begging the question - last time I checked both it and the IBD were respected published newspapers, albeit conservative - what more is required of them to be considered a valid source - a certain POV? Talk about begging the question.) and the scholar I quoted is assumed to be engaged in an agenda-driven attack. This kind of intellectual dishonesty is simply breathtaking to me. The reason I'm taking the side of the right here if because nobody else is doing it - in my mind a significant viewpoint that could very well be valid is simply being dismissed out of hand, and the dismissal is being consistently defended based on repeated appeal to the genetic fallacy, as if the viewpoint can be assumed to be invalid and dismissed as having no relationship on CRT for no better reason than because it arose on the right and has political ramifications. Davidwhittle (talk) 17:15, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Drop 'Media coverage' section or explain both sides

71.28.146.251 (Paul?) asks of the opinion essay by anthropologist/administrator Peter Wood published by the Chronicle of Higher Education, "Is that a scholarly peer review, or an agenda-driven attack?" I was about to ask that same question about the opinionated comedy routine by satirist John Stewart published by the Comedy Central Network!

I suggest that if John Stewart has his say (there are much more scholarly opinions of the same valence out there, incidentally), Peter Wood should have his say. On the other hand, I think this article should be improved most by completely dropping this too-newsy Media coverage section. We would do best by those coming to Wikipedia for information on CRT by creating a more detailed exposition of the postmodern epistemic foundations of Critical Theory in its Critical Race Theory form, and a survey of what it actually has to say. Perhaps others who have discussed this issue here lately have, like me, begun to do some research on CRT to that end.

Whether the Obama administration's policies and actions are influenced by CRT, and if so whether that is a positive or a negative, is something for citizens and pundits and scholars to address in the coming days and weeks. It is not our business to participate in that debate here, but if we are to report the debate, WP:NPOV dictates that we report all notable sides of it: "Articles mustn't take sides, but should explain the sides, fairly and without bias. This applies to both what you say and how you say it." —Blanchette (talk) 23:40, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Sounds like the voice of reason to me, Blanchette - although I do believe that the controversy needs to be included here somehow with all sides covered appropriately, since before the controversy, CRT was just another relatively obscure academic theory and now it's been transformed into a matter of public debate. Davidwhittle (talk) 00:43, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Over 100 newspaper stories ≠ relatively obscure. The Lexis-Nexis record suggests repeated public debate on CRT since the 1990s, and there of course was debate in academia before that.--Carwil (talk) 13:13, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Let's not engage in pointless arguments over semantics, Carwil. Since you have access to Lexis-Nexis, can you check to see how that 100 you cite (which I presume is from the '90s until February 29th, 2012) compares with the number of articles and stories since March 1st? Davidwhittle (talk) 16:47, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

I did. Scroll up.--Carwil (talk) 19:22, 20 March 2012 (UTC)