Talk:Critical race theory/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

edit request

I would like to request that the template below be added to the final section. Wikipedia is citing John Stewart on Critical Race Theory - Really? -- The Red Pen of Doom 16:55, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree with RedPen that citing a humorist (however funny he is) is a bit of a joke unworthy of Wikipedia. I'm wondering who thinks that we need to quote Jon Stewart on this and why? There are a number of reliable sources that could be cited saying essentially the same thing, aren't there? Davidwhittle (talk) 17:46, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

 Not done Please refer to the text in bold on the documentation at Template:Humor. If you object to how the article is currently written, you should propose a change to it and get consensus (and/or wait until protection expires). Tra (Talk) 20:57, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

CONTROVERSY REDUX

Let's face the elephant in the room. CRT is highly controversial and might even be called radical, and it's just as incendiary to the right, who believe that CRT is antithetical to the King movement of equal rights and a color-blind society (where the content of character matters more and the color of one's skin does not) as racism is to the left. The fact that the left simultaneously seeks to redefine CRT as something much less controversial than what Bell taught, while simultaneously seeking to disassociate the President from both Bell and from CRT is evidence enough of that, I would think. So the issue we've been discussing isn't the definition of CRT, which seems to be relatively settled at this point. What we're discussing is how to present the current controversy that has arisen around CRT. My position in this regard was the lead sentence I posted in the section I titled "Political Controversy" (which morphed into the currently titled "Media where I wrote: "The controversy surrounding Critical Race Theory was dramatically expanded in the public awareness and took on political implications in March of 2012 when ..." In other words, I think the article is incomplete without mention of how it became a matter of public debate recently. At the time I initially added that section, I was told that I was overstating the matter and that my half page should be reduced to a few sentences. The more I cut it, the more controversial it became. The more controversial CRT becomes, the more difficult it is to delete this entire section and be fair to readers who visit Wikipedia so they can put the controversy over CRT into context, with both sides of the controversy presented fairly. The problem is that one side of the controversy believes it's a totally manufactured controversy, because CRT has no influence on the President, and the other believes that information about it and its influence is being knowingly suppressed because it's so radical. Unfortunately, the longer this controversy lasts, the more it is likely that those who have taken the position that it doesn't matter and that it doesn't relate to CRT anyway will be left with an indefensible position as the debate continues to expand. So it seems to me that the intellectually honest thing to do is to present the controversy factually, with each position in the controversy being presented with perhaps one best citation. Another problem is that there are actually multiple controversies here: #1 is about the definition and meaning of CRT and whether it's mainstream or radical (O'Brien vs. Pollak), #2 is whether it has influenced President Obama and his Justice Department (decision not to prosecute the New Black Panthers, Holder's testimonies before Congress), and #3 is the issue of President Obama's past associations (Bell, Wright, Rezko, Ayers, etc.) and their impact, if any, on his administration. So which of those are appropriate for Wikipedia and where should they be included? I'm especially interested in the rationale. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidwhittle (talk • contribs) 00:53, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

More of the same. What you're writing about are conspiracy theories concerning Barack Obama, not critical race theory, the subject of this encyclopedia article. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 01:53, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

David, only #1 is really relevant here and neither O'Brien nor Pollak are really the best placed to answer that question. However, if we could compile some opinions on that subject only, and summarize them here, it would improve this article. Emphasizing O and P reflects recentism, not relevance. And I don't think we need to invoke the "recent media attention" to understand what they have been saying. It might be more useful to look back at some of National Review’s long term coverage to summarize the right-wing critique.--Carwil (talk) 13:09, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Quite right - David's #s 2 and 3 repeat the coat racking of Obama-attack that's been tried here - invoking Rezko gives it away. Now Rezko has relevance to CRT? O'Brien/Pollak was a short exchange in one interview a few days ago that went nowhere. There is a section in the article, appropriately, called "Criticism". If there are serious conservative perspectives, in reliable sources, that haven't been expressed, by all means include them in that section with appropriate weight vis a vis the rest of the section and article as a whole. But this Political controversy/Media coverage section was ill conceived in the first place and despite attempts to make it work, it isn't working. So please stop bringing in utter irrelevances and trumped-up "controversy" and keep this article as a review of the legal theory. There are plenty of places to bash Obama with Rezko, Ayers et al - the vast majority of them on the rightwing blogs - but this article is not the place. Tvoz/talk 16:50, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Tvoz, why do you think I separated the three issues, if not to try to find a basis for agreement? "Rezko gives it away"? Gives what away? That I'm seeking to discover how to balance various viewpoints? The point I've been trying to make that you and a few others are either blind to or fighting against is that the argument that there is no evidence that Obama believed CRT just because he knew Dr. Bell just doesn't hold up under critical scrutiny, and that the attempts here to ignore or discredit source after source after source that demonstrate that Obama not only learned and taught CRT and other radical thought, but also embraced it and has incorporated it into the executive branch, as demonstrated by appointment after appointment and policy after policy. But anyone who points it out is condemned as a right-wing nut case, regardless of their earned credibility and credentials, and any source I quote that supports the viewpoint is dismissed out of hand by the leftist contingent here. The irony that one of the viewpoints we're discussing is that information about CRT and Bell and Obama's connections is being ACTIVELY SUPPRESSED by the mainstream media (and those biased in favor of President Obama) is just too rich for me not to have attempted to see just how far the bias and willful blindness and denial and dismissiveness would extend. I must say that I've seen an impressive devotion to the cause of information suppression, at least for a community-sourced source of information devoted to being a *comprehensive* compendium. It's actually very difficult to find reliable information about one side of the controversy, which kind of defeats the purpose of Wikipedia, doesn't it? Honestly, I give up. The obvious bias here renders any kind of reasonable exchange not only tedious but ultimately futile. I've been reading other Wikipedia articles on topics I know extremely well, and have found that certain immature articles (like this one) that relate in any way to religion or politics can be insufferably biased by they way they leave out important facts, spin other facts too important to leave out, and fails to provide balanced viewpoints can be quite surprising. As best as I can tell, however, given enough time to acquire equal numbers of caring contributors on each side, ultimately, the system works and the bias fades. But it seems to me that in the short term, the leftist bias is palpable, and after seeing the relative "quality" of the exchanges that have gone on here, and the dynamics I've observed, I can see exactly why that is. Your risible attempts to stereotype me and lump me into a category you can then attack say a lot more about your agenda than they do about mine. I respect those who are able to make constructive edits, and we've seen a few of those - but I have no respect for those whose only tools are to delete and attack and whose only contributions are to suppress and deny. Why don't you spend your time finding sources for each of the viewpoints being expressed, as I have? Or even your own viewpoint if you think it's being poorly represented? Perhaps because your viewpoint is that the other viewpoint itself doesn't deserve a hearing? How many reliable sources do you require citing facts and reasoning in support of the latter case (that facts and associations are being hidden and suppressed) before the weakness of the former case (that the facts and associations should be dismissed instead of being addressed and answered) becomes self-evident? Please do explain. Davidwhittle (talk) 04:46, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Please actually read WP:OR and WP:UNDUE. -- The Red Pen of Doom 16:50, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Why don't you just make your point(s), RedPen, instead of condescendingly assuming I haven't read those. I had read them before and I read them again just to see what you might be trying to say. Guess what - I think they support my position. You think they support your position. Surprise! We disagree. I do think you're ignoring the several references I've posted here as you consider the relevance of WP:UNDUE, but I have no idea why you're pointing me to WP:OR. So let me not try to guess what your point is. I've made my points and elaborated on them. Your turn. Davidwhittle (talk) 17:38, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

I keep posting to the policies because your responses keep showing that you havent read and understood them. -- The Red Pen of Doom 17:42, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

I pointed to WP:OR because you are attempting to argue claims like " just doesn't hold up under critical scrutiny" as the basis for including content. Whatever dots we personally see and connect under our personal critical scrutiny based on a person's history 20 years ago is completely irrelevant. In order to even be considered for inclusions, those dots must be connected by a reliable third party source. You have not provided any reilable, non partisan sources, just people with no credentials in the subject matter out to push a POV agenda. -- The Red Pen of Doom 21:46, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

and when you get to content "is being ACTIVELY SUPPRESSED by the mainstream media " you need to be aware of thisWikipedia:FRINGE#Unwarranted_promotion_of_fringe_theories as well. -- The Red Pen of Doom 21:10, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for finally getting a little more specific, but you are cherry picking irrelevant pieces of my arguments, and ignoring the main points. All of this discussion is a waste of both of our time, inasmuch as I can't see any constructive dialogue occurring. When I can, I will re-write the section and propose it as an edit. Davidwhittle (talk) 21:11, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Honestly, David, your reply didn't really show that you read my comment either. Why are #2 and #3 relevant to an encyclopedic article about CRT? Please try to make your answer concise, because you're veering sharply into too long, didn't read territory with your comments here (somehow, I've had patience so far, but it's wearing thin).--Carwil (talk) 19:21, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

I never said #2 and #3 were relevant to CRT here. Didn't you see my question about whether and where they WOULD be appropriate? Obviously not, because you're not even reading what I'm writing, much less trying to understand it and address my concerns and find common ground. Davidwhittle (talk) 21:11, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

edit request the third

That the final section Critical_race_theory#Media_coverage be completely removed.

In addition to all of the issues noted in the banners of the section, the editor who wants it included is arguing "CRT and Bell and Obama's connections is being ACTIVELY SUPPRESSED by the mainstream media" Obviously a FRINGE theory that deserves no credence in Wikipedia article. -- The Red Pen of Doom 21:14, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support edit request — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:15, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

This is a bit more reasonable than your previous request but, since there is at least one person who wants it included, that makes it controversial. Therefore, I cannot act on it immediately. Instead, I'll ask you to wait a bit so see if a consensus can form then if there is a consensus, you can reactivate the request. Tra (Talk) 23:59, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support edit request. I believe one could write a short, neutral and encyclopedic paragraph regarding the notable dustup over Critical Race Theory on CNN, FOX, and on the web (any widely-commented argument over a topic that is normally confined to scholarly debate being notable), but I do not see it being written by the current crop of editors, as neutral and well-meaning as they may be in their own minds. If this issue returns later in the Presidential election, as in a debate or widely distributed campaign ad, we could revisit the issue. Meanwhile this section is something of an embarassment, in my opinion -- which is neutral and well-meaning. —Blanchette (talk) 21:41, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

I believe Blanchette's perspective on a "short, neutral and encyclopedic paragraph" represents the consensus; deleting the entire section does not, in spite of repeated false and disturbing assertions that only one editor opposes the deletion. The paragraph should, IMO, cover the change in attention given to CRT since the release of the video as well as the multiple perspectives on the influence of CRT that have emerged, ranging from those who assert the video is meaningless because CRT is a well-established academic theory but has had no influence on the Obama administration, to those who assert that CRT represents a radical view and the mainstream media has failed to properly investigate the significant influence of CRT on Obama and his administration. Both of those viewpoints can we reliably sourced. Davidwhittle (talk) 05:04, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

"this section is something of an embarassment," and "do not see it being written by the current crop of editors," is in any practical matter "nuke this and start over" -- The Red Pen of Doom 13:17, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

I actually agree that we should delete what's here and start over. Davidwhittle (talk) 20:17, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 22 March 2012

Request replacement of existing section with the following:

== Media Controversy Over the Influence of CRT ==

The definition of Critical Race Theory and its implications for society became a subject of controversy in March of 2012, following the circulation of a 1990 video, posted by Breitbart.com with segments broadcast by Sean Hannity on Fox News, featuring a young Barack Obama, then a student at Harvard Law School and President of the Harvard Law Review, introducing Harvard Law Professor Derrick Bell, one of the originators of Critical Race Theory, at a protest in support of Bell's demand that Harvard Law School appoint its first black female tenured professor.

Many, including CNN's Soledad O'Brien, saw the video as demonstrating a typically cordial relationship between a professor and a student. Some, labeling the controversy "hug-gate," asserted that the critics were overhyping issues that had already been well vetted and dismissed as unimportant. Others wrote that the right was engaged in a propagandistic attempt to establish guilt by association to Bell and CRT via a decades old relationship in order to smear Obama, and others said it represented an attack on America's black intellectuals.

Critics of CRT mistakenly asserted that the video had been previously hidden, based on a humorous comment made by Harvard Professor Charles Ogletree.. They saw in the video evidence that the young Obama embraced not only Bell but also CRT because he had also introduced Bell with an appeal to "open up your hearts and your minds to the words of Professor Derrick Bell." CRT critics also asserted that President Obama's alleged "radical past" indicated a sympathy for CRT that was being manifest in his administration, particularly in the Justice Department and its reduction and dismissal of voter intimidation charges against the New Black Panthers, in education, and in the appointment of Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan.

References

Justifications:

The original objections regarding WP:Undue and "slanted towards recent events" is addressed because the issue is actually expanding rather than contracting, bringing widespread attention to CRT in the media and culture. There are far more sources available now than when we started on this section, and CRT has never been more visible than recently. I would also be in favor of adding to the beginning of this section the fine work done previously on the emergence of CRT from relative academic obscurity into national media prominence (all sides and many sources are now addressing the issues).

I believe this replacement edit also addresses the issues of tone, recency, POV, forking, and coatracking.

The sources and perspectives presented are, I believe, much more balanced now that both sides have weighed in on the issues.

This update provides someone coming to this article for additional information on perspectives surrounding CRT with information and references on both sides of this controversial issue, rather than ignoring the controversy and pretending it's irrelevant.

Davidwhittle (talk) 20:37, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for putting this proposed section together but, as ever, I'll need to see a consensus for it before it can go in the article. So I'll deactivate the request for now to give people the opportunity to give their views. Tra (Talk) 21:19, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Problems:

• "indicated a sympathy for CRT that was being manifest in his administration" is a conglomeration of weasel words that amounts to guilt by association.
• The Kagan mention fails verification. Kagan is not reflective of a "manifest sympathy," but a law professor "asked to present a lecture on CRT," a body of writing she considered somewhat "nebulous" according to the very "Vetting" article cited.
• Nor is it credible that Glenn Singleton, an educator who uses CRT in teacher training, reflects a "manifest sympathy" of the Obama administration.
• The views of Breitbart.com do not deserve the weight given them here by extended repetition of their charges.--Carwil (talk) 21:47, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

If you are going to have a section about the current impact of CRT, what you would include is this story: "In January, a new law went into effect in Arizona that prohibits schools from offering courses that “advocate ethnic solidarity instead of the treatment of pupils as individuals.” ... Horne subsequently ruled that Tucson’s [Mexican-American studies program] violates his law, citing its teaching of critical race theory... books culled from Tucson’s schools when the program got axed were Shakespeare’s ”The Tempest” and “Mexican WhiteBoy,” a young adult novel by Matt de la Peña that deals with familiar themes like growing up, not fitting in and baseball. “The novel’s story is pretty much the American dream,” the New York Times noted Sunday. Nonetheless, it was embargoed for allegedly propagating critical race theory." ( [1] Actual real world impact caused by reaction to CRT. Not random mudslinging by association just cause its "high profile". But if you are going to include the mudslinging, you need to call it what it is. ( [2] )([3]) -- The Red Pen of Doom 23:01, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

So let me get this straight, Carwil and RedPen: you think I should not only present the sourced positions of both sides of the controversy, but also to critique each side in detail? What happened to reducing the arguments to a few sentences? Davidwhittle (talk) 23:13, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

So Carwil, instead of "indicated a sympathy for CRT that was being manifest in his administration," how would you word the position of a viewpoint you so clearly disagree with? Do you think I've misrepresented the other side of the controversy? Davidwhittle (talk) 23:23, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

if the content is shown, it needs to be placed in an appropriate context. if in order to place it in appropriate context, you have to write War and Peace, then its probably a clear case that it is UNDUE and not really appropriate for this article. -- The Red Pen of Doom 23:26, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Nonsense. I can say the same thing about the points being made on the side you apparently agree with. Davidwhittle (talk) 23:43, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Carwil, so representing the viewpoint of one side of the controversy using a reference to their arguments is "failing verification?" Do we have to decide on the validity of every sourced argument being made before it can even be included as an argument? If so, so much for "comprehensive compendium," because we'll never agree on anything, and NPOV will suffer. Why can't you just agree that my re-write is far better than what's out there now? Isn't that the question you're supposed to answer here? And why don't you make constructive suggestions that actually ENHANCE my proposed edit instead of playing the all-too-easy role of critic and deconstructionist? Davidwhittle (talk) 23:43, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

I think we are done here. -- The Red Pen of Doom 23:44, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. We should be done here with you - since you have consistently refused to honor the work of about a dozen other editors, have deleted said work to the point of requiring the section to be protected, and continue to ignore reasonable arguments while focusing on lesser points of Wikipedia dogma while ignoring the far more important and weighty matters of NPOV and the overall purpose of Wikipedia. I would think if any reasonable editor would take the time to read back and see how disruptive you've been here, they'd freeze you out of further conversation as an act of compassion to those of us who have spent far more time than you have attempting to actually contribute useful information. Davidwhittle (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:00, 23 March 2012 (UTC).

Alternative proposed re-write

Critiques

Critical race theory has stirred controversy since the 1980s over issues including its deviation from the ideal of colorblindness, promotion of the use of narrative in legal studies, advocacy of "legal instrumentalism" as opposed to ideal-driven uses of the law, analysis of the law as constructed according to racial power, and encouraging legal scholars to be partial on the side of ending racial subordination. [A more detailed summary of these views, per this 3rd party source summarizing major critiques would be appropriate here]

Conservative opponents of political appointees including Lani Guinier and politicians including Barack Obama have included a general critique of critical race theory in their criticism of these figure's actions on racial issues. Critics including George Will saw resonances between Critical Race Theory's use of storytelling and insistence that race poses challenges to objective judgments in the U.S. and the acquittal of O.J. Simpson.

Note: You have to edit to see the references, since one page can't have more than one reference list.

I'm not sure what to do with Pollak's assertion that critical race theory "holds that the civil rights movement was a sham and that white supremacy is the order and it must be overthrown." Really, this should probably be spelled out (CRT on the Civil Rights movement, and CRT on "white supremacy") elsewhere in the article. If for some reason, Pollak emerges as an especially widely cited critic of CRT (not holding my breath) then we can add a summary of his views.--Carwil (talk) 00:58, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Pollak's degree is in Sociology - but that covers a lot of area. Do we know that he has any credentials in specific areas that bring his opinions about this topic to the level of relevence that they should be included in this article? -- The Red Pen of Doom 15:21, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

This is good material, and the opening paragraph would be an excellent first paragraph in the Criticism section, with the other material being incorporated into the criticism section. But it still leaves us with the need to address the sudden and significant spike in media mentions of critical race theory that began the first week of this month. Google Trends shows at least a 100x spike in searches for critical race theory - and that could be a logarithmic scale for all I know. So apparently you're OK with having readers believe that nothing of relevance to CRT has happened this month? Davidwhittle (talk) 03:44, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

What's more, by failing to address the controversy at all, Wikipedia either leaves searchers unsatisfied or confirms the bias they arrive with, which is that the information is being widely suppressed by those with an interest in its suppression. Especially if they read this Talk section, which has also exploded since I first posted the "Political Controversy" section, and see numerous reasonable arguments for the inclusion of this section, including the consensus early on that some mention was appropriate. It wasn't until several editors arrived openly expressing opinions clearly hostile to one side of the controversy that the talk for deletion (i.e. suppression) arose. Trying to improve Wikipedia and provide actually helpful information shouldn't be this difficult. Davidwhittle (talk) 04:00, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

How many frickin times will we have to tell you that wikipedia is here to present an article about CRT and NOT repeat NOT HERE TO PLACE IN CONTEXT AN ATTEMPT TO SMEAR BY ASSOCIATION. -- The Red Pen of Doom 04:48, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm...

1. This article on Wikipedia is meant to provide an encyclopedic understanding of critical race theory. Hopefully all of those new searchers will find out what it is in a way that explains it from the beginning. A spike in google searches is not a new fact for an encyclopedia. As I've noted above, print media do not reflect this major spike. In fact, the real world events in Arizona constitute a separate March 2012 spike in interest in CRT.
2. As discussed on Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_84#Breitbart_as_News_RS, Breitbart.com is not a reliable source for factual information. It is a reliable source for the opinions of the contributors.
3. I have included Breitbart.com's attack on Obama's racial policies in the description. I just haven't quoted it at length. This is per WP:NOT#NEWS and our reliable sources policies. Ansell is simply a preferrable source (3rd party summary of contentious POV opinions is preferred over news-blog containing those opinions).
4. The influence of CRT on Obama is not addressed by reliable sources on Obama's influences here. Go find biographies, policy analysis, etc.
5. The Obama-Derrick Bell material belongs on Derrick Bell, whose protests are notable events. The reading that Obama's line about "the ideas of Derrick Bell" corresponds primarily to CRT, and not primarily to his advocacy of hiring a female person of color as a tenured law professor, is not clear from the quote.
6. It's reasonable to have a cultural and political influence section, in which we note the role of CRT theorists and texts in influencing other academic disciplines, curriculum development, theoretical perspectives, etc. I've already added a sentence to this effect (on law schools) to the lead. Bell's, Guinier's and Patrica Williams' public roles would fit there. Kagan's would not, since she's not a critical race theorist.
7. Using long sentences to reference all the accusations of an extreme POV, as if they were substantiated by those sources violates NPOV and is essentially a WP:COATRACK for a smear campaign, as you've been told multiple times. That's why I didn't include it.--Carwil (talk) 13:19, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Carwil, for providing your reasoning. At least now I can see where we differ on a reasonable basis, rather than the extreme left biased perspectives certain parties here keep shouting at me in personal attacks, unable to see their own bias. I've wasted far more of my time here than I should have, trying to combat Wikiality (hat tip to kusanagy-sama for the link earlier in this Talk) but to me it has seemed like a fight with tyranical leftist bullies who don't believe in free speech or NPOV - which is a fight I'm not going to back away from. I'm glad that someone (thank you Carwil) has explained things to me respectively and has answered many of the questions I've been asking, even though I don't like all of his answers and disagree with some of his conclusions (for example, I did not see what Carvil did about Breitbart.com in his referenced article - all of the informed, reasoned comments pointed to Breitbart as an acceptable source depending on context, and the assertions to the contrary were nothing more than unsupported assertions such as "No." - and I'm not sure why you and others on the left think it's a "smear" campaign, or guilt by by association, if Derrick Bell is a respected Harvard Professor and CRT is an accepted academic theory. We're not talking about a terrorist who advocates the violent overthrow of white America, are we?). At least now I'm able to disengage now without it feeling like a surrender to tyrants. My last word here is that I think the bias in Wikipedia is far left of center, which is understandable to me after my experience here. Who enjoys arguing with those blind to their own bias? The disdain for Breitbart and the right in general is unconscionable. The evidence for this left-leaning bias is pervasive, the more I look around, but one quick and easy example: Daily Kos is described as an "American political blog" while Mediaite was described as a "right wing blog." After I simply changed "right wing" to "American" with a pointer to the "American" on Daily Kos, the ensuing edit war over such a simple and obviously matter of encyclopedic integrity should be enough to inform any fair-minded person about the intellectual dishonesty of the left here on Wikipedia, just as many of the discussions here have been. So I'd like to go on the record here, as my parting shot, as stating that the intellectual dishonesty I've seen here in relation to this article on the part of a few editors is shameful. Kudos to the many who are honest brokers of information working hard to help improve Wikipedia for all. I respect you. No, I won't name names on either side because I don't need to. Fair-minded people can easily recognize the unreasoning bias whenever it rears its ugly head - all it takes is the simple observation that one side of the political spectrum is not treated the same as the other side. Several editors made it clear early on that their unconscious presumptions was that the mere act of labeling one side of the controversy as "right wing" or "Breitbart" should be enough to justify its exclusion on its face. Shame on Wikipedia for tolerating such offensive bias and ideological bullying and disrespect. I'm out of here - I've made all of the bold edits and contributions and comments I think I can make - it's up to the community now to decide what to do with them. I'll be watching with great interest to see what happens. Good luck! Davidwhittle (talk) 16:14, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Yep you are right. Wikipedia is just part of the massive liberal media elite conspiracy. -- The Red Pen of Doom 17:30, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

• That's better! I was pleasantly surprised to return to this article and find the more broadly conceived "Controversies" section in place of the "Media Coverage" section. I once tried to improve that section starting with the deletion of the Jon Stewart paragraph on WP:RS grounds, a deletion that was immediately reverted on the spurious assertion that his was the only opinion we had from mainstream commentators. I waited to see if my deletion would be reconfirmed by another editor but soon discovered that the article had been protected from editing again, leading me to the premature conclusion that improving that section, which I defended as dealing with a notable controversy, would be an impossible task.

I want to compliment Davidwhittle for this achievement, in particular for his tracking down the more important voices in the controversy and gathering the necessary citations. Also, thanks to the other editors who dispute either the notability or the balance of the current version for their admirable restraint in approaching their disagreements on a case-by-case basis. I think there are other editors whose motives are almost entirely political, including one with a 'special-purpose' account, and I hope they have learned from the good behavior of others to moderate their passions when it comes to editing Wikipedia with a neutral point of view. Carry on! —Blanchette (talk) 00:29, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, Blanchette, for the encouragement and validation of the numerous contributions made here in an attempt to find common ground. I need to point out that I owe a huge tip of the hat to numerous others, especially Carwil, for their research, contributions, perspective, and patience. I don't believe this section is yet complete - it could certainly use additional input; but if it survives even reasonably intact, then I might be inclined to believe that what I wrote in my book in 1997 about the power of online communities and mature, principle-driven cultures being a major force for good might even apply to Wikipedia and its free-for-all in the tense exchange of knowledge and perspective. :-) I don't know enough yet about how the informal (or is it formal?) Wikipedia hierarchy works, but I do know that for us Wikinewbs accustomed to pleasing one knowledgeable editor, trying to gain a consensus here, in a controversial forum like this, seems like a sisyphean task. :-) So more newbie questions, looking at Wikipedia culture: now that we seem to have a consensus (looking back over 3 weeks of talk, at least) that the section is worth retaining, what does it take to finally lose that last remaining WP:UNDUE tag? And what is a special purpose account? And how is it that you can speak with such rare clarity and moral authority, blanchette? :-) Davidwhittle (talk) 05:01, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

On Editing Wikipedia & "Critical Race Theory." Davidwhittle, thanks for the compliment but if I speak with clarity I attribute it to reading philosophy, where (postmodernism aside) clarity is a major virtue. I particularly recommend Aristotle. Perhaps some of that study has rubbed off. I have no more moral authority than any other editor who strives to fulfill the purposes of Wikipedia and a lot less moral authority than those who devote huge blocks of their own precious time to that end. As a dilettante editor I don't always get the right names for WP concepts and that includes my reference to a "special purpose account," which should have been "single-purpose account." See WP:SPA for details. As far as I know the best way to get rid of the "Undue weight" tag is printed right on the tag: leave a message here stating that the continuing elevated level of discussion on CRT in the media precipitated by the "Obama-Bell" video, perhaps even the mention of CRT in connection with the Trayvon Martin case (web search "Trayvon Martin"+"Critical Race Theory"), shows that the public controversy regarding CRT has sufficient weight to justify and expand the section, and so on. Say that without objections you will remove the tag. You have my support, for a start. I'll continue this discussion on your talk page if you like as much of it is not directly relevant to improving this article but of a more general nature. —Blanchette (talk) 07:55, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

You mean articles where there is such examination of CRT as " If you watch Monday Night Football or Sports Center, you don't see much critical race theory creeping into the analysis. "? Someone might later do an analysis showing that once people start referencing CRT in that manner as a shorthand there is some type of impact. But we cannot be that source. -- The Red Pen of Doom 19:09, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

NPOV

The claim that CRT is neo-marxist in origin in the initial definition is unduly biased. If Derrick Bell, the initial proponent of CRT, were a Neo-Marxist, it would have been mentioned in his biography.  kgrr ^talk 14:21, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

This POV was introduced into the article recently in "Revision as of 03:25, 12 March 2012"  kgrr ^talk 21:46, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

This is an article about Critical Race Theory, not Derrick Bell. The sentence in question reads: "Critical race theory (CRT) is an academic discipline focused upon the application of critical theory,[1][2] a neo-Marxist examination and critique of society and culture..." The question then, is not whether Derrick Bell was a neo-Marxist or not, but whether Critical Theory is neo-Marxist and whether Critical Race Theory is a branch of Critical Theory. Neither is in dispute and the label is entirely appropriate. Its omission would be unduly biased, not its inclusion. Davidwhittle (talk) 15:21, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

UNDUE

I am deleting the WP:UNDUE tag for the following reasons:

1) Reviewing the entire Talk section, there are more who favor the inclusion of some mention of the recent controversy or have at least participated in the editing of its presentation, than there are those who argue for its deletion.

2) Early arguments that it was a ginned-up controversy that would quickly disappear have not proven valid, given the number of citations and mentions in reliable sources on both sides of the controversy. 166.70.45.120 (talk) 17:48, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

You have failed to show that the tag is not appropriate. -- The Red Pen of Doom 18:11, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

"Recent" coverage includes: " Breitbart had promoted the video as a "bombshell," suggesting that it proved Mr. Obama to be a “race warrior” intent on righting the wrongs of history on the backs of white Americans. But the Obama-Bell video fizzled, says Professor McLaughlin. and When I asked Boehlert how the new Breitbartians were doing, he laughed out loud. ... “Take the Derrick Bell story. The only pick-up it got was in its own corner of the Internet.” He wasn’t impressed at how Fox News covered the story? “I don't count Fox. In the real world, no one paid attention.” -- The Red Pen of Doom 18:33, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Those sources you cite represent one aspect of one side of the argument, are clearly biased and uninformed opinion, and are less reliable than existing sources and thus certainly don't negate the entire other side, as you assert. The assertion that only Fox News paid attention to it is provably wrong, at least if you've been paying any attention to the sampling of other sources that are already in the article. Also, even though this won't set well with left-leaning editors, even if Fox News were the ONLY outlet to cover one side of a controversy, that would be adequate to establish the importance of that viewpoint. Is that even in question? Fox News is by far the most watched source of news and opinion in cable TV - hardly a source that can be readily dismissed, especially given the history of almost all of the other major media outlets of suppressing or ignoring important stories that seem unimportant to leftist editors but prove important to everyday Americans, for whatever moot reasons. And if you need me to cite example after example, you're just not even reasonably well-informed. So to argue that it's unimportant, as you do, you have to then address the question of why there have been so many articles on one side arguing that it's important (and offering reasons why they think it matters) and then so many on the other side arguing that it's not important and attempting to dismiss it without ever addressing the issues raised by the other side. Which, by the way, is EXACTLY the approach you are taking here. So please address why you think only one of the viewpoints should be supported - by leaving both viewpoints out of Wikipedia altogether. And let me appeal to other fair-minded editors to either express your support for RedPenofDoom and his arguments, or express your support that the UNDUE tag be removed so we can continue to work together to improve the section by providing more and even higher quality information - not less information, or express an opinion on ways the section can be further improved to warrant the removal of the tag. Davidwhittle (talk) 20:27, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

By the way, RedPen, why don't you just include those references in the article somehow? That would at least arguably improve it far more than your suggestion that they be used to justify the exclusion of the opposing viewpoint. Davidwhittle (talk) 20:30, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

So we add more bloat to a section to call out the fact that it is actually a non-issue?? -- The Red Pen of Doom 20:32, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

3 paragraphs is undue. Don't let me constructive editing give you any impression that I don't think the text is excessive, as I've said before.--Carwil (talk) 21:06, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Another attempt

In 2012, CRT critics also assailed President Obama for an alleged "radical past" based on his videotaped participation in a rally supporting critical race theorist Derrick Bell's campaign for faculty diversity at Harvard Law School. Some conservative critics, including [who?] and [who?] noted that advocates of CRT receive government education grants, and alleged that the Justice Department was race-concious in its dismissal of charges of voter intimidation against the New Black Panther Party, which they described as reflecting an overall embrace of critical race theory by Obama and his administration.[citation needed]

Explanation: This text would replace all three paragraphs below the undue flag. As I've said before, the hug is unencyclopedic and the Obama quote and introduction belong at Derrick Bell. I've added the quote to a footnote for good measure. Still, this is an article about CRT, so the dubious allegations, are best summarized not repeated. I've tried to do so here.

I am not contending that these details are necessarily a notable feature of the theory (any more than a presidential candidate who says "I don't believe we came from monkeys" should be on Human evolution), but I'm willing to live with this scale of mention for purposes of building consensus.--Carwil (talk) 21:24, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I wish I had the time to give this the attention it deserves, but let me just weigh in briefly by saying that the reason this controversy is important to CRT and deserves to be featured in the article is that it shows just how divided the country is over the matter of CRT.

One side asserts that CRT represents a radical redefinition of the social contract and that proponents, knowing how unpopular it would be if it were more broadly understood, are trying to minimize awareness of its true role and impact in national affairs. The other side, ironically, feeds that viewpoint by arguing that it has little impact and no real role, rather than defend the theory and its role in government. Those are the two viewpoints, and I'm not sure they can ever be reconciled here until one side or the other has prevailed in the public square. So why not just present both viewpoints, as the current text attempts? Davidwhittle (talk) 02:23, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

This is a better summary than what's in the article now. Some editors still don't understand that this has nothing to do with an encyclopedia article about critical race theory. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:48, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

David, if "the country" were "deeply divided" about CRT, there would be more than a few voices to quote from the media. If you want to substantiate this idea, source it.

The page is largely devoted to those who defend the theory (rather than people who "are trying to minimize awareness of its true role and impact"), and will be more so. However, its "role in government" is largely being interpreted by people who are neither expert in CRT nor in government policies. Until there are some reliable sources on the Obama administration (not outsiders with a history of smear campaigns) who indicate his agenda is significantly shaped by CRT, relatively little attention needs to be given to this theory. Indeed I'm offering more than I think might be necessary. Would you accept it?--Carwil (talk) 03:11, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

We're getting close, Carwil - I appreciate your constructive approach to dialogue about this. I believe the viewpoint expressed by Peter Wood, in the Chronicle of Higher Education, at http://chronicle.com/blogs/innovations/bell-epoque/31897 is not properly represented, and should be. If you can somehow summarize and include Wood's viewpoint from the article (particularly the "academic mainstreaming of fringe anti-American theories" quote - which IMO really nails the central point of dispute in the controversy), then I think we can find harmony about what should be included. Carwil, I respect your encyclopedic style - if you can incorporate Wood's perspective on the controversy into this section, then I think (hope) we can find consensus. Thanks for your efforts! Davidwhittle (talk) 15:35, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I should add that I'm not talking about adding in Wood's viewpoint on top of the parts you don't like. I'd rather see a re-write of those portions of this section you don't like, but using Wood's approach - especially if Carwil is doing the re-writing. Personally, I think Wood nails the viewpoint of mainstream thinking about CRT, and the way his article was dismissed earlier, apparently even before reading it, as an "agenda-driven attack" says more about the tendency of this article to attract editors inclined to be sympathetic to the viewpoint of the far left than it says about Wood being an unreliable source. Davidwhittle (talk) 15:45, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

• Here's an alternate proposal: "In March 2012, a 1991 video of President Barrack Obama briefly embracing Derrick Bell, one of the founders of CRT, after introducing him at a diversity rally, caused a few critics of President Obama, quick to assail everything from his choice of hamburger toppings to his NCAA bracket picks, to argue that Mr. Obama had a radical past. Not a single f*** was given by anyone after 48 hours. Also, the video was broadcast on PBS in 2008, including the hug, and not a single f*** was given then either. Also, John McCain hugged and had dinner with Moammar Gadhafi once, hence he is a sekrit muslin like Obama." Feel free to edit. I guess I can swallow Carwil's compromise if nothing else. My point? let's have some common sense people. How many times do we have to revert the scientific Age of the Earth article from teens who say "6,000 years per God FTW"? We don't keep hemming and hawing over it. Tying Obama to CRT via the hug and introduction at a rally is the one of the most stupid things I've seen in the past year. Well, there's the Etch-a-Sketch "controversy", this baloney is happening weekly now.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 18:06, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
  • the whole hug=he must support the most radical interpretation of the most radical element the guy wrote about is about as WP:FRINGE as you can get. and has ZERO to actually do with the subject of the article, the theory. deserves zero space in the article. You cannot catch CRT from a toilet seat.-- The Red Pen of Doom 19:00, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 19:18, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for demonstrating that you're capable of ridiculing and satirizing viewpoints you don't agree with, in clear violation of three of the five pillars. Now how about you go and read the article I referred you to and see if you can possibly demonstrate that you're capable of understanding and appreciating viewpoints you don't like. Davidwhittle (talk) 20:42, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

"An idea that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight in an article about a mainstream.... Wikipedia is not and must not become the validating source for non-significant subjects. We use the term fringe theory in a very broad sense to describe ideas that depart significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view in its particular field. Scholarly opinion is generally the most authoritative for identifying the mainstream view, with the two caveats that not every identified subject matter has its own academic specialization, and that the opinion of a scholar whose expertise is in a different field must not be given undue weight. For example, fringe theories in science depart significantly from mainstream science and have little or no scientific support. Other examples include conspiracy theories and esoteric claims about medicine."

This is halmark fringe theory territory. No one in mainstream academic community and only a few extreme partisans in the mainstream media are giving this any consideration at all.

I am giving this the respect that it deserves. -- The Red Pen of Doom 21:04, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

So CRT is mainstream and Pollack, Wood, and other detractors are fringe? LOL! There you go, begging the question again.

I'm curious: why is OK for so many editors to insert themselves into a legitimate discussion with multiple sides and perspectives amongst a few serious editors so they can address strawman arguments, make invalid assertions of consensus, fail the civility test, and otherwise make personal attacks and other unhelpful comments? Please stop. Now, because it's obvious that those doing so are not seriously engaged in a search for consensus but instead are seeking to suppress information and discussion, let me insert here the text from Peter Wood, a serious scholar representing the viewpoint of many of the other sources I've cited, that some of you are clearly not taking the trouble to read, or can't digest or understand it:

The O’Brien-Pollak exchange is surely grist for divergent enthusiasms. What I find most interesting is O’Brien’s pretense that because critical race theory is a “theory,” it has nothing to do with “white supremacy.” She seems touchingly oblivious to the possibility that CRT is a theory that posits the centrality of white racism in the American legal system. The answer to her last question is surely yes: Pollak is attempting to connect President Obama with a “serious radical.” Bell’s appointment as a tenured professor at Harvard Law School in no way stands as evidence that he was not “a serious radical.” To the contrary, Bell prided himself on his radicalism. Those who paid attention to his career at Harvard, punctuated by outbursts of public protest against imaginary instances of institutional racism, can hardly think otherwise. Anyone doubting the radicalism of his theory can easily consult his own statements, as in his 1995 article, “Who’s Afraid of Critical Race Theory?“

But I don’t take O’Brien’s bafflement as a pose. She seems genuinely incredulous that anyone would take professor Bell—the first black tenured professor at Harvard Law School!—as a radical, or that anyone would be discomforted by Barack Obama’s enthusiasm for the man and his theories. The word “Harvard” does amusing things to the minds of some journalists.

O’Brien’s incredulity, however, speaks volumes about the academic mainstreaming of fringe anti-American theories. Critical race theory has next to nothing going for it as a descriptive analytic of how American jurisprudence works. It doesn’t fit the facts of American life from Brown v. the Board of Education, to court enforcement of the Voting Rights Acts, the Civil Rights Act, or hundreds of other pieces of legislation. Critical race theory is weirdly and wildly wide of the mark in either explaining how Americans have made and interpreted their laws for at least the last fifty years, and arguably long before that. CRT might have been useful as a historical frame for interpreting the Jim Crow era, but even then it fails to provide any sort of reasonable account of the 14th Amendment and Reconstruction. But CRT is not a theory about the Jim Crow era: it is a theory about the present. Its pretense, as Pollak accurately says, is that the Civil Rights Movement was hollow and that we continue to live in a nation the laws of which are pervasively racist.

Of course, there are few theories aggressively disdainful of American society, however manifestly absurd, that lack a cheering section in contemporary academe. So “critical race theory” does now have a place in the curriculum. Indeed, it is now widely taught in law schools and in some undergraduate programs. That doesn’t make it any less absurd. It just specifies what kind of absurdity it is: an academic one, brought to us originally by a radical Harvard law professor and sustained by faculty members committed to the promotion of grievance ideology. And given academic racial politics, it is more or less exempt from “critical thinking,” serious academic criticism, or the simple scorn which is its rightful due.

- Peter Wood, President, National Association of Scholars

You may not agree with Wood, but can you fail to recognize that he presents a serious viewpoint that directly relates to both the controversy under discussion and Critical Race Theory? The vehemence and intellectual arrogance of the various levels of denial here should be self-evident, but apparently when you're not getting your way, it's considered acceptable to throw up a cloud of gorilla dust. Now can we get back to serious, balanced discussion? Davidwhittle (talk) 21:22, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

"By 2002, over 20 US law schools and at least 3 foreign law schools offered Critical Race Theory courses or classes which covered the issue centrally.[10] " And that is not to mention its inclusion in "survey" style courses. CRT is most certainly a concept discussed in mainstream academia. That "you can tell a CRT practitioner by the people he hugs" is most definitely not. -- The Red Pen of Doom 00:16, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Did you even bother to read what I just posted? If so, did you even get the points that Wood made? Obviously not. This isn't about the hug, so stop hauling out that straw man just so you can burn him again and scatter ever more cinders all over the discussion here. Davidwhittle (talk) 01:06, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

The points that Woods makes:

1) That he thinks CRT is a silly construct that is representative of many silly constructs that have taken a place in academia. We already have a pretty strong Criticisms section, but if you think his view is an important and not yet covered view, we can talk about adding it or replacing some of the existing content with it. in fact it is probably better than the unsourced Gates stuff in there now. but that is not really what you are talking about.

2) That he thought O’Brien was presenting a very weak "But he's from Harvard!" defense. Even if true completely irrelevant to the subject of this article: Critical Race Theory.

3) That he thinks that Bell presented himself as a radical. Again, even if true completely irrelevant to this article: Critical Race Theory

4) And that Pollak was attempting to connect Obama to a radical. Again, even if true completely irrelevant to this article: Critical Race Theory.

And so //No// I do not "fail to recognize that he presents a serious viewpoint that directly relates to ... the controversy under discussion ". What I see and what you keep failing to see is that it doesn't have anything to do with the actual topic of this article. -- The Red Pen of Doom 03:09, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• Peter Wood? Come on. He says "Barack Obama’s enthusiasm for the man and his theories" -- this is the hug. McCain's tweets about Gaddafi said just as much about his clear embrace of totalitarian regimes.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 03:30, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

We might as well be talking different languages - we're for sure talking past each other, because you keep making the same pointless points and I keep trying to refute them using new sources and new arguments. Let's just let it be for awhile until we start seeing some fresh and hopefully unbiased comments for a change, although I suspect someone will call in the Wikiality posse soon to gang up on any clear thinking NPOV until it cries for mercy. Perhaps Carwil and I can come together on something - I at least respect his contributions and ability to engage in productive dialogue. Davidwhittle (talk) 04:35, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

LOL. Have you tried looking in a mirror lately? What about reading your messages on this page? Physician, heal thyself. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:42, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

More for the book-burning bonfire going on here: http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/03/29/Critical-Race-Theory-and-the-Trayvon-Martin-Case

Sorry to be quoting Breitbart.com again - I know how much so many of you hate Breitbart, but failure to recognize their capacity to identify and influence matters of national import is a genetic fallacy that should be studiously avoided. Remember ACORN and how the media botched things so badly that even Jon Stewart weighed in about how badly the media had failed to investigate and report on ACORN? To think Breitbart is done or that CRT won't continue to be in the news is to engage in wishful thinking. Davidwhittle (talk) 22:14, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

WP:CRYSTAL and we are most certainly NOT here to pander to a POV pushing web conglomerate. -- The Red Pen of Doom 10:47, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

References