Talk:Critical race theory/Archive 4

an academic discipline focused upon the application of critical theory,[1][2] a neo-Marxist examination and critique of society and culture
Does anyone else have an issue with the term "neo-marxist" here? It seems to be a term of dubious meaning and connection to the topic. Diodisegno (talk) 19:37, 29 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I think it's there to serve the same purpose as "scare quotes". As in, critical race theorists are commies. But maybe it serves some other purpose. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 19:49, 29 March 2012 (UTC)


 * It serves the entirely defensible purpose of placing it into its proper academic context as a subset of critical theory. Have you followed the link to Critical Theory? Do you propose deleting the neo-Marxist reference there as well? And if you do, how does leaving it out serve Wikipedia's encyclopedic purpose? Seems to me it serves only a one-sided, agenda-driven political purpose rather than the purpose of providing valuable contextual information to readers. Davidwhittle (talk) 22:03, 29 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I've stayed out of this debate in an attempt to neither do a what leftism? intervention (CRT theorists generally see themselves on the broad left) nor delete content rather than add content. And honestly, I need to convey because my detail-oriented critique to David to get consensus. But now I can...
 * Let me quote the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy for background on "critical theory" first:
 * Critical Theory has a narrow and a broad meaning in philosophy and in the history of the social sciences. “Critical Theory” in the narrow sense designates several generations of German philosophers and social theorists in the Western European Marxist tradition known as the Frankfurt School. According to these theorists, a “critical” theory may be distinguished from a “traditional” theory according to a specific practical purpose: a theory is critical to the extent that it seeks human emancipation, “to liberate human beings from the circumstances that enslave them” (Horkheimer 1982, 244). Because such theories aim to explain and transform all the circumstances that enslave human beings, many “critical theories” in the broader sense have been developed. They have emerged in connection with the many social movements that identify varied dimensions of the domination of human beings in modern societies. In both the broad and the narrow senses, however, a critical theory provides the descriptive and normative bases for social inquiry aimed at decreasing domination and increasing freedom in all their forms.
 * Okay so, Frankfurt School = Neo-Marxist German theorists. "Critical theory" (broader sense) = anti-domination cultural critique, loosely inspired by their work.
 * Breathe.
 * Now where does CRT come from? In note 2 of the article, we have a very detailed summary of "the ‘Critical’ in Critical Race Theory":
 * Critical Legal Studies (CLS)
 * Africana thought: David Walker, Maria Stewart, Martin Delany, Frederick Douglass, Alexander Crummell, Edward Blyden, Anna Julia Cooper, Rufus Lewis Perry, and W.E.B. Du Bois
 * "two major influences: Du Bois and Fanon"
 * Are these the Frankfurt School Neo-Marxists? No. But, CLS "draws on various critical discourses (feminist, Marxist, and post-structuralist theory in particular) to construct a critique of the legal establishment's standard operating procedure" (, Gary Olson in Composition Studies in the New Millennium). The much longer introduction to Critical Race Theory: The Key Writings that Formed the Movement says the same thing about CLS.
 * Many of these theorists/theories fit uncomfortably under a "neo-Marxist" umbrella. And the phrasing we have now "apply critical theory, a neo-Marxist…, to" implies CRT is more a derivative than an innovation, which is wrong on the facts. I think I would be comfortable with describing CRT as a left antiracist discipline, or as Critical Race Theory: The Key Writings that Formed the Movement puts it "an intellectual identity and political practice that would take the form both of a left intervention into race discourse and a race intervention into leftist discourse" (xix).
 * In general—I'll get back to wordsmithing later—we should describe CRT as "an academic discipline focused the intersection of race, law, and power," in the lead sentence, perhaps with the left antiracist qualifier. Immediately thereafter, we should discuss its proximate roots. And in History or Key Theoretical Elements attempt to define each of them. Like, you know, an encyclopedia.--Carwil (talk) 13:05, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * So now we're having the exact same argument that O'Brien and Pollak were having, which everyone says is irrelevant to CRT (yet suddenly is relevant to the lede) and you're making the same attempt (just using new-found sophistry) to argue O'Brien's point that CRT is merely "antiracist" and not neo-Marxist or radical. Why? To whitewash this CRT article to obscure the radical origins of CRT now that it's getting all this attention, which is precisely the viewpoint that so many are attempting to suppress here. I'm totally disgusted by the intellectual dishonesty I'm seeing. It's no wonder that so many of the other more reasonable editors are no longer here. The overwhelming bias, fallacious reasoning, personal attacks, and outright bullying here is just too much for any reasonable person to stomach. Davidwhittle (talk) 22:37, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Wow. I didn't see replacing "an academic discipline focused upon the application of critical theory, a neo-Marxist examination and critique of society and culture, to the intersection of race, law, and power." with "a left antiracist academic discipline focused upon the intersection of race, law, and power" as "whitewashing." Ain't nothing wrong with neo-Marxism, I just want the first sentence to focus on critical race theory and not its various predecessors, of which "critical theory" is just one.
 * Rather than deny a Marxist position for CRT, I just offered sources that they largely identified as leftists. That also isn't whitewashing.
 * Finally, I suggested (per WP:MOSINTRO) that describing the various intellectual roots of CRT belongs in the body of the article. This is how encyclopedias in general and wikipedia work. (Do not mistake my snarky statement of this for hostility.) Going further, it may be perfectly appropriate to describe Critical Legal Studies as a discipline initiated by "neo-Marxist intellectuals, former New Left activists, ex-counter-culturalists," and other dissidents (original: "and other varieties of oppositionists"), and as an "openly leftist" network of academics (CRT:TKWTFTM, xvii-xviii). This sentence though, illustrates how "neo-Marxist" is not a catch-all term, but leftist is. Again, this is not about hiding, but about accuracy.--Carwil (talk) 14:45, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

The Neo-Marxist label needs to be removed or altered in some way. Critical theory has as much to do with Weber as it does Marx - and Weber was no Marxist. From previous discussion it is obvious that CRT is not a direct branch of the marxist tree even if the field of sociology/critical theory is heavily influenced by Marx. CRT's introductory line should not be dominated by descriptions that are not accurate. Neo-marxist is a precise term referring to certain disciplines and distinct modes of belief, but it is also a politicized term that simply means 'leftist boogeyman'. The fact that Davidwhittle would link to conservapedia and then argue with a straight face (how could we ever know?) that Wikipedia has been captured by the 'left' demonstrated clearly that David has an axe to grind. Every edit, every discussion, every statement reveals that David already has his mind made up about CRT, its adherents, and its critics. Clearly David identifies with the critics of CRT and does not edit in good faith; he disparages the entire wikipedia editing community and expects to be treated like a good-hearted intellectual in the very next breath. This is nonsense. CRT is not neo-marxist though I bet you can find neo-marxists who support CRT. 'Neo-Marxist' needs to be removed or altered so that this article accurately reflects what CRT actually is, and not what Davidwhittle so wishes it to be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.230.101.117 (talk) 16:12, 2 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Critical theory is not defineable as "neo-Marxist" except by people who so define anyone who is critical of inequality and social injustice (people were interested in these things before Marx and of course continued to be so afterwards). Max Horkheimer for example stated that a theory is critical in so far as it strives to emancipate people from the circumstances that enslave them. It is of course wholly possible to believe in the necessity of emancipation and liberation without being a neo-Marxist.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:12, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Ben Shapiro and bad style...
I might question the inclusion of right-wing talk radio host Ben Shapiro as being a good source for the article, but beyond that issue, what sort of writing style does that section contain? There is an indent after a statement by Ben, where Ben quotes himself? Poor form, that. 151.213.41.85 (talk) 06:45, 30 March 2012 (UTC) Paul
 * PS - Is there a reference that Shapiro actually said the first part (before the awkward indentation) of what is attributed to him? "Radical Marxism dedicated to undermining the Constitution from within"? 151.213.41.85 (talk) 07:07, 30 March 2012 (UTC) Paul


 * Proof positive that you have no interest in actually reading the sources or understanding the arguments made in them. 21 references the Shapiro article, and 20 references the other. And I'm appalled that you think all that is required to discredit a source is to label him a "right-wing talk radio host." Did you notice that he's also a Harvard Law grad, or does that mean he's not really qualified to comment on CRT either, while all of the apparently radically left-leaning editors swarming around this article are more qualified than Ben to pass judgment on what CRT is and is not? Unbelievable. Davidwhittle (talk) 22:46, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, you caught me red-handed! Pardon me for questioning whether a lawyer (a rare occupation in our country) who passed the bar just 4 years ago, and whose resume consists mainly of a book published by WorldNetDaily, appearances on conservative talk radio and Fox News, and being an editor-at-large for Breitbart.com, might not be the best choice for fair criticism of CRT.


 * Reference 20 has nothing to do with anything I've said. I wasn't commenting on Posner. Part of the verbage attributed to Shapiro does not appear in ref 21.
 * And, what's with:
 * "Ben Shapiro asserts blah blah blah, asserting:
 * blah blah blah
 * Using assert twice in one sentence doesn't read as well as if ones gets a little more creative in selecting verbs, and the split sentences and indent is just... odd. 151.213.41.85 (talk) 06:05, 2 April 2012 (UTC) Paul

Shapiro has no relevance to this article. You can find any number of critics for anything but wikipedia does not link to them all. 173.230.101.117 (talk) 16:15, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Woods Quote
I strongly protest all of the recent edits I've seen here recently. Unbelievably stupid, and I'm tired of being polite in the face of such arrogant bias. The Woods paraphrase that was added to the Criticisms section instead of the controversy section where it belongs (because it's the controversy he was addressing!) is a pathetic, biased attempt to ignore his primary argument and discredit his supporting argument without understanding either. I give up. Go ahead and scrub this article of all traces of any perspective originating with any "right-wing" thinker and thereby make this article less useful, less helpful, more biased, and perfectly aligned with the consensus of all of the liberals, radicals, and Marxists here who apparently have more time and interest in it than I do. Davidwhittle (talk) 23:01, 30 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Re-reading Woods, his first two paragraphs address Soledad O'Brien's characterization of CRT, principally focusing on whether CRT is "radical" and whether it alleges that white supremacy is central to law. These paragraphs "address the controversy" in one simple way, to reinforce the term "radical." That might be relevant to editing your three-paragraph version (casting doubt on O'Brien), but isn't so relevant to improving a shorter version. Going further, we should quote Bell's "Who's Afraid of Critical Race Theory" to the effect that CRT is committed to "radical critique of the law … and … radical emancipation by the law." And while we're at it, we could quote Slate's Will Oremus to the effect that CRT is radical "in the sense that it questions fundamental assumptions," but "not radical in the sense of advocating extreme tactics to achieve political ends."
 * Wood's second two paragraphs are a cogent conservative critique of CRT, not really an expansion of the controversy, and do belong in Criticisms.
 * Finally, an encyclopedia article should allow people to hear about controversies to learn basic information about the subject at hand. It should be informative and complete and not skip over description of the subjects. But what-you-should-know-about-the-controversy does not drive its structure. Instead, a sober categorization of knowledge about the subject should.--Carwil (talk) 16:03, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It is so very rich for someone who wants to cover "a hug = support for a radical theory" to be arguing about a quote being used in inappropriate context! -- The Red Pen of Doom  23:10, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I wish I had Googled "Wikipedia bias" and read and researched http://www.conservapedia.com/Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia and http://frontpagemag.com/2011/08/23/how-the-left-conquered-wikipedia-part-1/ before I started trying to help with this article. I would have saved myself a lot of time and grief here. Anyway, I just want to go on the record as stating that I'm appalled at the bias I've encountered here and the failure of the Wikipedia system, whatever it may be. Ad hominem attacks are allowed and not even discouraged, bullying is often winked at, and inconsistency abounds. I once believed Wikipedia to be a positive force in the world, but no longer. I can't trust it for NPOV or for accurate unbiased information in any article having anything to do with politics, science, or religion. The system for improving articles is broken because the power lies with those with time on their hands and an agenda to push. Sad. Davidwhittle (talk) 04:41, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

CRT and BHO: like it or not, they are a pair in the mainstream debate. I support Davidwhittle's view of the relevance and importance of the discussion of Critical Race Theory in the press related to both the contention that CRT influenced Barrack Obama and the contention that it did not. Not only do we find legitimate non-fringe viewpoints on both sides, the controversy has been widely reported and discussed (i.e., in both straight news and opinion pieces) in the mainstream, non-fringe media including the following examples:


 * United Press International 8-March-2012: Breitbart video shows Obama at protest
 * Los Angeles Times 8-March-2012: Obama Harvard protest video from Breitbart.com causes stir
 * The Atlantic 8-March-2012: Breitbart.com's Massive Barack Obama-Derrick Bell Video Fail
 * Cable News Network (CNN)8-March-2012: Breitbart's 'bombshell' Obama videotape
 * The Washington Post 9-March-2012: Derrick Bell’s widow Unaware of second hug between prez and prof
 * Slate (magazine) 9-March-2012: Derrick Bell controversy What’s “critical race theory,” and is it radical?
 * The Chronicle of Higher Education 13-March-2012: Bell Epoque
 * Los Angeles Times 16-March-2012: Political campaigning as a blood sport
 * Salon (website) 21-March-2012: How Breitbart and Arizona seized on critical race theory

Notice that all the above sources have been recognized as notable by Wikipedia and all of them agree that the issue is significant enough to cover, irrespective of disparate opinions on the CRT-BHO connection. Wikipedia's current one-liner on the issue states: "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." In addition to its ambiguity problems, this sentence is so slanted as to be plainly false, in that many critics — of Obama at least — do not merely "include" a criticism of CRT in their criticism of Obama's actions, they straightforwardly claim that his actions are likely to be motivated by a commitment to the precepts of that theory. To sweep this disagreement under the rug cannot be justified by a concern about "fringe" theories or other far-fetched Wikifinagling activity (See WP:FINAGLE, #5, etc.).

As I said previously, 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 — and the coverage noted above demonstrates that we should — then 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." For those who fear that President Obama is smeared by associating him with CRT, despite the ability to reference numerous articles ridiculing the connection, I can also show you a number of articles that argue CRT offers a true account of our predicament and that it ought to be embraced by the current administration (e.g.). So please ask yourself, "Who am I to hide this issue, deciding what is good for everyone else to know?"

Please forgive Davidwhittle's frustrated words which indicate that he harbors some doubts about other editor's good faith in their approach to this article, and instead please examine your own contributions to this page to find where you have answered each of the points David has raised. If you were to do this with a calm heart and an open mind I think you will find that you have not only implemented a policy of evasion regarding the CRT-BHO debate, you have also implemented a policy of evasion with regard to the legitimate inclusionist arguments offered on this page. You can do better. I believe in you.

I will support Davidwhittle's reinsertion of his balanced account of the debate back into this article and resist any more reversions of that material without the discussion and consensus that Wikipedia requires. That I cannot return here every day means that you may "get away" with non-consensus edits, but not for long, so why waste everyone's time and patience? —Blanchette (talk) 09:42, 31 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Just for clarity, does the text I outlined under Another attempt, which is longer than the present one, but shorter than David three-paragraph description, work for you?--162.83.169.194 (talk) 15:44, 31 March 2012 (UTC)


 * In my opinion, carwil, your suggested "improvement" is not an improvement in any way over the two paragraphs I have re-inserted, which Blanchette refers to as a "balanced account." Speaking of the re-insertion and its subsequent quick deletion (again?) by The Red Pen of Doom ], why he can continue to delete my work in complete disregard for the long history of comments here by both sides, not to mention my defense of my position against biased editors who claim a false consensus after either no attempt or feeble attempts to address the issues I raise, is beyond my capacity to understand while continuing to "assume good faith." I assumed good faith until the actions and words of at least two of the editors eliminated all reasonable doubt about their lack of good faith. I'm not a Wikipedia expert - but I know an agenda-driven editor when I see one, and RedPen certainly qualifies. [[User:Davidwhittle|Davidwhittle (talk) 20:14, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

A question: If I sign up for a free account at "The Chronicle of Higher Education" and then post something on my free blog page (not their "News" page, nor their "Opinions and Ideas" page), will my words then carry the implied approval of The Chronicle of Higher Education and I'll be considered a notable source here? 151.213.41.85 (talk) 06:41, 2 April 2012 (UTC) Paul
 * Yes, if you are notable have been previously published on issues of the intersection of race and law and politics and culture and history. -- The Red Pen of Doom  19:42, 2 April 2012 (UTC)


 * In other words, no. Davidwhittle (talk) 20:02, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Let's try to write a full and balanced Controversies section
I notice that User:Malik Shabazz has apparently abused his adiministrator priveledges by blocking User:Davidwhittle from editing (see User_talk:Davidwhittle) for a period of 24 hours for defending his edits to Critical Race Theory from repeated reversions by others without discussion or consensus. Since user Malik Shabazz has been personally involved in the editing of this and related articles, this block should probably be considered a violation of WP:INVOLVED and possibly an instance of WP:ADMINABUSE. I urge Malik Shabazz to remove himself from this issue as an administrator and not to abuse Davidwhittle for his good faith edits. On the other side, it is time to heed the referenced policy on Administrator Abuse: "If a user believes an administrator has acted improperly, he or she should express their concerns directly to the administrator responsible and try to come to a resolution in an orderly and civil manner." However the block must be removed first, since there can be no civil resolution to a disagreement where one party holds the other hostage.

Also, despite my earlier call for either dropping or writing a shorter and more balanced "Controversies" section, having attempted to write a draft that met my goal I now believe that the section should be expanded to present all sides of what is not a simple issue and in particular I wish to state that I concur with Davidwhittle's general approach which I see as balanced and thorough. I think that my above review of the coverage of the CRT issue in the wake of the "re-release" of the Obama-Bell video shows that the controversy merits as clean and accurate an exposition as Wikipedia is capable of providing. —Blanchette (talk) 22:26, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * You should read more carefully (20:21, 2 April 2012 Fluffernutter (talk | contribs) blocked Davidwhittle (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 24 hours (Edit-warring on Critical race theory)) and take back your accusations of people misusing their authority. -- The Red Pen of Doom  22:31, 2 April 2012 (UTC)


 * As TheRedPenOfDoom wrote, I didn't use my administrative tools. However, if you feel I've abused the tools, by all means bring the matter to WP:AN/I. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 22:46, 2 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, I just noticed that User:Fluffernutter, whose signature is less than helpful, was the actual blocker, while the rude warning (remember:WP:GOODFAITH) just above the block notice was by User:Malik Shabazz. I am sorry for my error, Malik Shabazz. While I admit that there is no WP:INVOLVED issue here, I do take issue with Fluffernutter's faulty reading of the dispute, however, since Davidwhittle's previous edits were well defended by him but their reversion was done without addressing most of his points. I see Red Pen of Doom (User talk:TheRedPenOfDoom) and Malik Shabazz as the real edit warriors (though they war in good faith, of course) and I wish Fluffernutter would read this discussion page more carefully before deciding who the edit warrior is. I do not have time to check this page every few hours in order to defend Davidwhittle's edits, so please THINK before you delete: two agreeing editors do not a consensus make, nor does the absence of two editors on the other side at any given time justify the Wikifinagling (WP:FINAGLE) identified as: "Waiting until a person leaves on WP:wikibreak, or is blocked, to rewrite or delete their work, without consensus." So let's try to write a full and balanced Controversies section. —Blanchette (talk) 23:21, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The issue here was that one editor was inserting contested material, whereas others were removing it. All contested material can be removed at any point and only reinserted by consensus. The editor who repeatedly reinserted the contested material was the one who was not following policy, and the one who should be blocked for edit warring. Also note that WP:FINAGLE is also "Writing veiled insults or slurs, to bypass restrictions of WP:CIVIL or WP:No Personal Attacks." I think your post here falls under that definition. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:25, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I find your comment bewildering, Maunus, because I am operating in nothing but good faith here, irrespective of my apparent failure to understand the fine points of Wikilaw regarding contested material. I should appreciate your explaining your implication that my post violated WP:CIVIL or WP:No Personal Attacks, unless you are referring to my (innocent, I assure you) error of thinking that Malik Shabazz blocked Davidwhittle, an error for which I apologized, as you can see. I will be grateful for your treating me with respect and assuming my good faith, as I assume yours. Of course, I may be missing some subtlety here, and I would be grateful for any enlightenment you may have to offer me. I would particularly grateful if you would point out any veiled insults or slurs (inadvertent, I assure you) that you have located in my post. —Blanchette (talk) 06:20, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Just popping in here to say that Manus is correct, more or less. We had one user edit-warring to insert hotly contested material and a few other users trying to communicate to him that that was problematic and then removing the problematic content. The burden of proof falls to the editor who wishes to insert contested material, and it was inappropriate for Davidwhittle to edit-war to reinsert his preferred content, especially because, per this talk page and the edit summaries he was responding to, he knew the content was contested and it concerned a WP:BLP, which, under previous arbcom precedent, allows users to summarily remove BLP content the appropriateness of which is questioned "until a decision to include it is reached, rather than being included until a decision to remove it is reached." BLP is one of our most stringently enforced policies, and the point of that in this case is twofold: first, it compounds the matter of Davidwhittle's edit warring to reintroduce problematic BLP material, and second, because reverting problematic BLP material is explicitly exempted from our edit warring policy, it means that the users who were removing his additions were within policy. I would also note to all involved here that yet more arbcom precedent allows for special enforcement action regarding BLP content, and users are expected to be mindful of the consequences of problematic editing in this area, which may include revert restrictions, topic bans, blocks, and page protection. Side note about my signature: both User:A fluffernutter is a sandwich! and User:A fluffernutter is a sandwich redirect to my userpage; it should be no issue for someone to end up in the right place if they need to find me based on my signature. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 23:53, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you Fluffernutter for commenting on (apparently) my comment that your signature was "less than useful." I'm sorry I did not recognize it as a signature, but in my haste, thought is was a piece of Wikipedia Whimsy, linking to information about blocking users, perhaps. Had I recognized it as a signature, of course, I would not have assumed the block notice was a continuation of user Malik Shabazz's block warning immediately above. In any case, I will never forget you, "A fluffernutter is a sandwich!," and I will never misinterpret your signature as a piece of whimsy again. :) —Blanchette (talk) 06:44, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I think mentioning that Arizona's ethnic studies ban was controversial is a more accurate description of what actually happened. The section IS about controversies, but as it is right now it appears that the course was done away with as a matter of typical legislative action.

"In 2012, a Mexican-American studies program in Tucson, Arizona, was disbanded in part because of its teachings of CRT, which were seen to be in violation of a recently passed state law that "prohibits schools from offering courses that 'advocate ethnic solidarity instead of the treatment of pupils as individuals.""

This does not read as controversial to me. As it stands we know that MAS was removed in part because of CRT but unlike the other items mentioned in this section I am not reading anything that denotes WHY MAS' removal due to CRT was controversial. We just know it was removed; whether this made any waves the reader can only assume and there is nothing described in the quoted sentence that would make you assume such a thing unless you had followed the news at the time. Also can we do something about the neo-marxist label? 173.230.101.117 (talk) 01:13, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The section title is "Controversies and impact" . The AZ incident is a display of actual impact in the real world as a result of having been labeled "CRT". -- The Red Pen of Doom  01:31, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * and I didnt find any sources that labeled it as a "controversy" - they just implied that is was stupid censorship. -- The Red Pen of Doom  17:54, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

As bad as it ever was...
The entire "controversies" section still suffers from the same flaws stated by many editors upon its initial insertion (most of which are now archived off the current talk page).

When Blanchette was asked to return to help fend off the "ad hominem bully squad" (which I call "the consensus"), he/she posted a list of articles, arguing that they were evidence that DavidWhittle's insistence his text be allowed is justified. I'd argue that Blanchette's post only again demonstrates that the new section is an example of Recentism, Undue Weight, and Coatracking. Only two of the cited references have CRT as their topic, the Slate article (quite good) and the Peter Wood blog entry. The subject of nearly all the remaining articles boil down to "Breitbart calls Obama radical". This initial portion of the list spans a period of 5 news days. The final three articles cited, that chronologically appear to give more than 5 days life to this issue, are the (now deleted) The Atlantic article "Breitbart.com's Massive Barack Obama-Derrick Bell Video Fail" which lumped this "buzz" as part of "Breitbart's legacy: a tendency to overhype non-stories". The LA Times story is about campaign tactics and merely lists the Breitbart attack as one of many recent political affronts. The final Mar 19 article from Salon concludes with "critical race theory may be on its way to joining the pantheon of right-wing bugaboos".

This faux controversy was politically-driven, focused on President Obama, and fizzled out in a few days. The widespread and established academic theory CRT has a history spanning 4 decades. That history has not been illuminated, expanded upon, or otherwise modified, by last months brief "Obama is scary" attack.

An article on an academic theory that is fraught with conspiratorial speculation as to what thoughts may or may not exist in someone’s head, and how those thoughts may or may not affect their actions strikes me as far from encyclopedic.

(We now have Obama and "The New Black Panthers" in the same sentence? I won't be surprised if by next week 'Baby Doc' Duvalier or a quote from Chuck Norris has worked it way into this article. The only place this issue really lives on is on this wiki talk page) 75.88.83.17 (talk) 01:41, 5 April 2012 (UTC) Paul
 * really? i mean after following the advice of those who wanted to cover the "controversy" by presenting the actual views in proportion we get to include the wonderful "giant nothing-burger" quote. how can that NOT be awesome? -- The Red Pen of Doom  01:51, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh dear! I'd gone off an article download from prior to that edit. I have to say that that is... exquisite. Setting aside the problems I stated above, you have nicely balanced any NPOV issues that may have existed. 75.88.83.17 (talk) 02:45, 5 April 2012 (UTC) Paul
 * "On April 4th Breitbart.com reported that Chuck Norris had compared President Obama infavorably with Haitian strongman 'Baby Doc' Duvalier, saying "If I ever meet him I'd sure teach him a lesson on critical race theory"."·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:52, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Grr, didn't even take a week 75.88.83.17 (talk) 02:45, 5 April 2012 (UTC) Paul
 * And they say that wikipedia isn't a crystallball. Well you don't have to be when you can create your own reality.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:01, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Next Steps: RfC?
Right now we have two alternate approaches under discussion for this 2012 Breitbart.com-initiated controversy, as well as a third approach withdrawn in the interest of finding consensus on this page.


 * 1. (currently on page, largely by Davidwhittle) Controversy also arose 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. How this possibly links President Obama to Critical race theory is a matter of debate, being called by some "guilt-by-association tactics and race-baiting." CNN's Soledad O'Brien and others 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, while others said it represented an attack on America's black intellectuals..
 * Critics of CRT asserted that the video had been previously hidden, based on a humorous aside 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 assailed President Obama for an alleged "radical past" that they asserted indicated a sympathy for CRT that was being manifest in his administration, particularly in education and in the Justice Department and its reduction and dismissal of voter intimidation charges against the New Black Panthers.


 * 2. (filled in compromise proposal by Carwil) 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 Breitbart.com Chief Editor Joel Pollak and other writers on the site, 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.


 * 3. (proposed earlier) 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.

Supporters of 1 have emphasized the need for coverage and argue that other electronic media coverage of the controversy illustrates its importance, and that to minimize the issue would violate WP:NPOV. Supporters of 2/3 argue that the coverage in 1 is disproportional (WP:UNDUE) and nonencyclopedic, constituting a WP:COATRACK on the article.

I believe there is a fundamental difference is approach that makes it difficult and perhaps impossible to work to a consensus between these texts among currently active editors. I suggest we make a request for comment on which length is due, and invite in other voices. For now, I also invite suggestions to modify this summary so that the issue is as clear possible for such an RFC.--Carwil (talk) 15:05, 3 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I think an RfC is probably the only way we're going to resolve this, but I think all interested parties must agree to abide by the consensus that emerges from the RfC. Without that, we might as well keep banging our heads against the wall. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 16:08, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * seems to be a logical next step. -- The Red Pen of Doom  16:40, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * In your framing of the RfC you may also want to note that there are also WP:BLP issues in labeling a living person and attaching "radical" political philosophies to them. -- The Red Pen of Doom  17:24, 3 April 2012 (UTC)


 * It's bad enough that you keep attempting to delete/censor/suppress information in the article itself, The Red Pen of Doom, but now you're doing it on the talk page too? I made a legitimate comment on the RfC, along with my comments on why I was supporting it, under a protest of sorts, and you suppressed the comment and insisted that I couldn't add a response to defend myself from a manipulative attack? You win. I've lost all patience for the Kafkaesque level of absurdity you've almost single-handedly brought to a Talk page that was otherwise somewhat productive and progressing towards a reasonable consensus. 166.70.45.120 (talk) 04:31, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is here to create encyclopedia. This article is here to be an encyclopedic article about CRT. This talk page is here to create a better encyclopedic article about CRT. If you have another agenda, you will need to go elsewhere. -- The Red Pen of Doom  10:58, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

so are we moving forward with this? -- The Red Pen of Doom  16:44, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

This has all been very enlightening. I once idealistically believed, observing from afar, that Wikipedia and its culture were a marvel of cooperation and good faith. At least as it's been demonstrated here, however, and after further research, I've now seen it to be a combination of "Animal House" and "Lord of the Flies." I assumed good faith for weeks here, as long as I could possibly continue to do so in the face of overwhelming evidence that at least two of the editors were seriously hostile, biased, and made repeated personal attacks, unwarranted claims, and belligerent claims, and gradually it became painfully clear that they were not only not acting in good faith, but were attempting to use Wikipedia rules to manipulate and obscure rather than enlighten. I'm not naming names, because I don't need to since the offenders are easily recognizable. Fortunately, I'm not a full-time, professional Wikipedia editor and have nothing to lose by speaking freely here. I will explain my agenda, however - not that it was ever hidden, since I'm using my real name here and previously mentioned my reason for sticking around long after other more reasonable voices had been driven away. I'm an authority on cyberspace/Internet culture, having been online since 1979 (yes, as text scrolled by at 300 baud). I was IBM's first online representative (and was the target of a well-documented attempted character assassination campaign by Microsoft), am the author of "Cyberspace: The Human Dimension," and have been a guest lecturer at Duke. I've seen enough here to recognize that there is much more going on here than meets the eye. For example, what is being proposed now is, in essence, a charade and a kangaroo trial. The outcome is virtually foreordained, which is why it's now being proposed. Wikipedia's fatal flaw is to allow contributor / editor anonymity - which is entirely inappropriate for an encyclopedia or any other cooperative effort where objectivity and credibility matter. I've learned from my research that some indeterminate number of editors on Wikipedia are paid "defenders" and/or "assassins." Besides the several witnesses I have, it can also be deduced based on how entirely predictable and inevitable it became once Wikipedia rose to the top of Google search for any particular topic or person. Power and money always seek to control information, and what better means than to astro-turf Wikipedia? If I had to do it again, I would never set up an account using my real name. That's like bringing a knife to a gunfight. I was honestly naive enough to believe that credibility and credentials might make a difference. LOL! So by all means, proceed with the RfC. I'll be watching with great interest. 166.70.45.120 (talk) 21:59, 3 April 2012 (UTC) [davidwhittle]


 * 300 baud is light-speed! Connecting for years to a Sperry UNIVAC or Honeywell CPV using a (then) state-of-the-art 110-baud acoustic coupler, now that's slow!  Plugh! Plover! Xyzzy! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.88.83.17 (talk) 03:49, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * where's my bird cage? -- The Red Pen of Doom  16:43, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

By the way, if you want to see the evidence for lack of good faith, just read this Talk section in its entirety and look at the treatment of all those who took the same position I did, including blanchette - whom I'll liken to Socrates attempting to mediate at a lynching. 166.70.45.120 (talk) 21:59, 3 April 2012 (UTC) [davidwhittle]

A lynching involves white people gathering their families en-mass to enjoy the torturous death of a black person. You are not being lynched, and your use of the term clearly demonstrates an editor who is acting in bad faith and with pre-concieved notions. Shame on you David have some respect for other people that live in our country. 173.230.101.117 (talk) 22:17, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

What part of "metaphor" do you not understand? And your definition of lynching is inflammatory and inaccurate. I had ancestors who were lynched, so shame on you for attempting to make this something racial. 166.70.45.120 (talk) 04:13, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

--I think it is you who misunderstand metaphor: it is not an all-invincible shield that allows you to say horrible things when making a point based on a personal agenda. My definition is not MY definition but THE definition. You had no ancestors that were lynched, and if you did: shame. 173.230.101.117 (talk) 00:36, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Wow
I must say the latest version, last edit at 18:43 GMT, 6 April 2012, is informative and far better than I had expected following some recent highly politicized references to the concept. I'm very impressed. Good work, all. Thank you. --TS 19:30, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

LOL! Yup. Wow. I'm impressed too. That RfC sure didn't take long! The whole thing is an effort worthy of Alinsky. This past few weeks here has been a most revealing episode. Carwil is the only intellectually honest and capable scholar on the left I've seen here - the rest of the arguments and contributions aren't worthy of a D on a high school paper. I hope everyone is proud of 1) the dubious scholarly accomplishments (mostly consisting of deletion and corruptive edits), 2) the risible lack of balance and utter failure to achieve anything resembling a reasonable consensus, 3) the ability to insult, impugn, and intimidate honest editors and contributors or stand by while it happens, and best of all, 4) the suppression of valid information and honest research by manipulating the system. And the Wikiality echo chamber here leaves you thinking you're validated in protecting this article against any hint of what everyone who is paying attention knows anyway - that President Obama obviously accepts and believes at least the core of Critical Race Theory, which is that our Constitutional Law is predicated on a racist premise because it incorporated slavery, and therefore the Law cannot be color-blind or it perpetuates the injustice. But because the application of said premise is controversial - especially if it's by the current Justice Department in the Black Panther voter intimidation case, or most recently in the complete blindness of the Administration to the vigilantism in the Martin / Zimmerman case - and might harm Obama, it can't be allowed to have any presence in this article. No matter how much evidence mounts and no matter how many sources weigh in on both sides, NPOV be damned - a growing number of recruited censors here believe the side that says "Nothing to see here. Move along now" - in spite of what any thinking person can easily deduce not only from the hug, but also from Obama's unwillingness to release his transcripts and his past associations and appointment of so many Marxists and radicals, and the obvious evidence of CRT in the Justice Department's refusal to administer the law to the point that even the Civil Rights Commission weighed in on it - so the article must reflect the consensus of the censors who think suppression is the answer rather than present both viewpoints to let reasonable readers decide for themselves. What a pity for Wikipidia. Make that Wikipitia. What a pathetic outcome this is. Bravo for the way you've called in the troops and overwhelmed the opposition. You win. I surrender. Go back to your usual patrols to find the next unsuspecting and idealistic editor trying to make a serious contribution to Wikipedia. They're out there, I'm sure, just waiting for the fun you have in store for them. Break a leg! Davidwhittle (talk) 06:00, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * "protecting this article against any hint of what everyone who is paying attention knows anyway - that President Obama obviously accepts and believes at least the core of Critical Race Theory," your patent POV pushing of WP:OR is reason enough to no longer assume good faith in your editing presence here. -- The Red Pen of Doom  13:36, 7 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not the place to expose anybody as a "believer in CRT". We summarise knowledge that is already well established and sufficiently relevant. When Obama starts mentioning his inner belief in CRT in speeches or starts implementing policies based on it then we can mention it. We are not here to disseminate conspiracy theories. There is another encyclopedia for unsuspecting idealistic editors.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:50, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * "When Obama... starts implementing policies based on it then we can mention it." Ha! Good one. -- Glynth (talk) 23:13, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Origins
I think this sentence in the opening paragraph could use a rewrite: Appearing in U.S. law schools in the mid- to late 1980s, critical race theory began as a reaction to critical legal studies. You could say it is an offshoot of, or derived from, CLS, but "began as a reaction to" seems improper? Most sources say CRT came about due to the perception that the advances made by the Civil Rights Movement were ineffective. The timeline may be a bit off as well? The article in reference #6 that "mid-to-late 1980's" is based upon states that Reagan judicial appointments (1981-1989) first spawned Critical Legal Studies, and that CRT was then based upon that. That seems to contradict many other sources, as well as the wiki CLS article that states it started in the 70's. I guess it depends on what the date cited implies? Some of the tenets of CRT go back 100 years to Frederick Douglass and W.E.B. Du Bois. CRT seems to have coalesced as a theory in the late 70's? The first official CRT conference wasn't until 1989.

Critical race Theory By Anthony Ryan Hatch "Critical Race Theory ... a specific body of American legal scholarship that emerged in the 1970s and 1980s in response to the successes and failures of the Civil Rights Movement"

Critical Race and Postcolonial Theory "While the exact term “critical race theory” was coined by critical legal scholars in the 1970s and 1980s, critical theories of race in the U.S. go back as far as the mid-nineteenth and early twentieth centuries"

A Short History of the ‘Critical’ in Critical Race Theory By Lewis R. Gordon SOURCE: American Philosophy Association Newsletter "From the late 1970s to the present, critical race theory has, thus, been marked by..."

Critical Race Theory: An introduction By Richard Delgado and Jean Stefancic "Critical Race theory sprang up in the mid-70's as a..."

Maybe Appearing in U.S. law schools in the mid- to late 1980s (as curriculum) is accurate? If so, that's not made clear. I guess it could be difficult to put an exact date on an idea or a concept, so maybe the broader "70's and 80's" is best? 75.88.80.187 (talk) 05:45, 8 April 2012 (UTC) Paul
 * thank you for providing the sources. i am not opposed to more clarity and detail. maybe we can get enough information to have a little "History" section. -- The Red Pen of Doom  13:05, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm a little busy in real life, but stand behind "as a reaction to". I strongly urge both creating a history section and writing it while reading the quite long introduction to Critical Race Theory: The Key Writings That Informed the Movement. CRT was, as I've recently noted in the "Key Theoretical Elements" section, a response to both CLS and traditional civil rights scholarship, embracing elements of, and strongly critiquing, each of them. For the record, I block "offshoot" from the lead, but don't block the word from the article.
 * The race scholarship (outside of the legal academy) that CRT uses extensively is much older (Dubois, Fanon, Roediger, etc.) and should be cited in this article, but it's not really "the beginning of CRT," IMHO.--Carwil (talk) 19:29, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Key Theoretical Elements
I am a graduate student who has recently begun to study CRT. For the average reader, I think that it might be helpful to clarify the key theoretical elements by adding more to the definitions and by adding examples. I plan to do so soon. I would like to add the edits to the talk page first and obtain feedback before changing any text on the main page. N r davisUSA (talk) 16:49, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, please do that.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:52, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Here is the updated version. I have used Wiki code and have documented the sources for each of the items. Some of the items are linked out to other Wiki pages, I hope. This is the first time I have ever posted to a Wiki page, so please bear with me as I learn the process.

CRT’s theoretical elements are provided by a variety of sources. Richard Delgado and Jean Stefancic have documented the following major themes as characteristic of work in critical race theory:


 * A critique of liberalism: CRT scholars favor a more aggressive approach to social transformation as opposed to liberalism's more cautious approach, favor a race conscious approach to transformation rather than liberalism's embrace of color blindness, and favor an approach that relies more on political organizing, in contrast to liberalism's reliance on rights-based remedies.


 * Storytelling/counterstorytelling and "naming one's own reality"--using narrative to illuminate and explore experiences of racial oppression.


 * Revisionist interpretations of American civil rights law and progress—criticizing civil rights scholarship and anti-discrimination law. An example is Brown v. Board of Education. Derrick Bell, one of CRT’s founders, argued that civil rights advances for blacks coincided with the self-interest of white elitist.  Mary Dudziak performed extensive archival research in the US Department of State and US Department of Justice as well as the correspondence by US ambassadors abroad.  She found that the passing of the law was to improve the US image abroad in Third World countries that the US needed as allies in the Cold War.   It was not because they thought people of color were being discriminated against.


 * Applying insights from social science writing on race and racism to legal problems.


 * The intersections is the examination of race, sex, class, national origin, and sexual orientation, and how their combination plays out in various settings. --e.g., how the needs of a female who is Latina are different from a male who is black and whose needs are the ones promoted.


 * Essentialism —reducing the experience of a category (like gender or race) to the experience of one sub-group (like white women or African-Americans). Basically, all oppressed people share the commonality of oppression. However, that oppression varies by gender, class, race, etc., so the aims and strategies will differ for each of these groups.


 * Cultural nationalism/separatism, Black nationalism--exploring more radical views arguing for separation and reparations as a form of foreign aid.


 * Legal institutions, critical pedagogy, and minority lawyers in the bar.


 * Structural determinism, or how "the structure of legal thought or culture influences its content," is the concept that a mode of thought or widely shared practice determines significant social outcomes, usually without our conscious knowledge.  Because of this, our system cannot redress certain kinds of wrongs.


 * White privilege refers to the myriad of social advantages, benefits, and courtesies that come with being a member of the dominant race, such as a clerk not following you around in a store or not having people cross the street at night to avoid you.


 * Microaggression are the sudden, stunning, or dispiriting transactions that mar the days of people of color. They are small acts of racism consciously or unconsciously perpetrated and are like water dripping on a rock wearing away at it slowly.  The micoraggressions are based on the assumptions about racial matters that are absorbed from cultural heritage.


 * Empathic fallacy is the belief that one can change a narrative by offering another, better one and that the reader’s or listener’s empathy will quickly and reliably take over. Empathy is not enough to change racism as most people are not exposed to many people different from themselves and people mostly seek out information about their own culture and group.

Gloria J. Ladson-Billings adds the theoretical element of whiteness as property. She describes whiteness as the ultimate property which whites alone can possess. It is valuable and is property. The ‘property functions of whiteness’—rights to disposition, rights to use and enjoyment, reputation and status property, and the absolute right to exclude—make the American dream a more likely and attainable reality for whites as citizens. For a CRT critic, the white skin color that some Americans possess is like owning a piece of property. It grants privileges to the owner that a renter would not have. In this way, a renter (or a person of color) is not afforded the privileges of owners.

Karen Pyke documents the theoretical element of internalized racism or internalized racial oppression. The victims of racism begin to believe the ideology that they are inferior and white people and white culture are superior. The internalizing of racism is not due to any weakness, ignorance, inferiority, psychological defect, gullibility, or other shortcomings of the oppressed Instead, it is how authority and power in all aspects of society contributes to inequality.

Camara Phyllis Jones defines institutionalized racism as the structures, policies, practices, and norms resulting in differential access to the goods, services, and opportunities of society by race. Institutionalized racism is normative, sometimes legalized, and often manifests as inherited disadvantage. It is structural, having been absorbed into our institutions of custom, practice, and law, so there need not be an identifiable offender. Indeed, institutionalized racism is often evident as inaction in the face of need. Institutionalized racism manifests itself both in material conditions and in access to power. With regard to material conditions, examples include differential access to quality education, sound housing, gainful employment, appropriate medical facilities, and a clean environment.

N r davisUSA (talk) 02:02, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Ooops. I wanted to provide the list of sources since you can't see them at the moment. For the items that I did not update, I documented using the previous writer's source. These are the sources for the rest of it that I used.


 * Delgado, Richard, and Jean Stefancic. Critical Race Theory: An Introduction. New York: New York UP, 2001.


 * Ladson-Billings, Gloria. "Chapter 1: Just What Is Critical Race Theory, and What's It Doing in a Nice Field Like Education?." Race Is...Race Isn't: Critical Race Theory & Qualitative Studies in Education, (1999): 7-30.


 * Pyke, Karen. "What Is Internalized Racial Oppression and Why Don't We Study It? Acknowledging Racism's Hidden Injuries." Sociological Perspectives, 53.4 (2010): 551-572.


 * Jones, Camara Phyllis. "Confronting Institutionalized Racism." Phylon (1960-), 50.1 (2002): 7-22.


 * Dudziak, Mary. "Desegregation as a Cold War Imperative." Stanford Law Review, 41.1 (1988): 61-120.


 * Source used by original writer: Delgado, Richard, and Jean Stefancic. "Critical Race Theory: An Annotated Bibliography." Virginia Law Review, 79.2 (1993): 461-516.

137.28.203.147 (talk) 16:10, 26 April 2012 (UTC) N r davisUSA (talk) 16:12, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Please let me know if I may add my recommendations to the main page. Thank you. N r davisUSA (talk) 23:54, 27 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I would encourage you to go ahead. It can always be tweaked later if someone else disagrees.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:11, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I have moved this to the main page. N r davisUSA (talk) 16:19, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

What I Modified for the Key Elements section of Critical Race Theory.
 * Key Elements – Changed Name from Key theoretical elements to Key elements
 * Added sentence - CRT's theoretical elements are provided by a variety of sources.


 * Worked all Delgado and Stefancic bullets except “Applying,” “Cultural nationalism,” and “Legal institution.”
 * Added additional elements to the Delgado & Stefancic section: white privilege, microaggressions, and empathic fallacy.
 * Updated sentence structures for storytelling and critique of liberalism in Delgado and Stefancic section
 * Added more information to existing Delgado and Stefancic bullets: revisionist interpretation, intersections, essentialism, structural determinism
 * Added new info: Gloria J. Ladson-Billings, Karen Pyke, and Camara Phyllis Jones.
 * Updated citations so that every element has a source listed.
 * Added internal links to white privilege, micoraggressions, oppression, Gloria Ladson-Billings, and institutionalized racism.

Shouldn't the article be written in a way so that a general audience can read and understand it? Considering audience, I do recommend looking at the first part of the "Key elements" section. There is academic jargon that a general audience may not understand. N r davisUSA (talk) 00:29, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Europe
I understand that rightwing/white criticism gets ignored, but maybe the negative reception in Europe should be addressed? (Eg. in Germany the terminology was introduced in universities, but immigrant organisations oppose the concept and argue that in Europe they are discriminated because of being non-germans/french/.. or muslims and not because of "being Black". Many claim that critical whiteness studies do not fit for Europe, complain that various US-theories get simply copied by the European left and that artifical categories get imposed on immigrants, who have to deal with other problems) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.190.105.228 (talk) 16:17, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * We cover what the sources discuss, but not our personal analysis. Do you have any reliable sources that talk about the application of Critical Race Theory in places outside of the US? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  16:19, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Wiki's Tone and usage of supposed and so-called
So-called White people say that White xyz does not exist. You see can, depending on our politics, take issue with everything that WE decided is not 100% factual. Well, how do we establish any statements if we add this editorial tone to things? Because the existence of "White people" is not a "fact", the existence of WP is not a "fact". So when we write an article on Racism we cannot de legitimize accusations of racism by inserting So-called, or supposed. It is empty and political editing. And I have dealt with this issue many times on wiki over the years. --Inayity (talk) 12:26, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Hmmm. Your so called NOPV sucks eggs. That's how So Called should be used.

I came here to read up on a theory, and having studied political theory, I expected an article on the theory, not an article on that theory without criticisms from anyone other than pop stars.

The weakest point, IMHO, is the contention that white people (so called or not) did this all solely for self interest. Self interest is indeed a great driving force in history and always has been. But, and it's a big but, this theory's contention rests on archival evidence that people at the DOJ wrote memos justifying their jobs? It's even weaker than I thought.

There needs to be a criticisms section. From real academics.

I would think some one at some point has broken this down by religion. Jewish people, for example, post WWII would have a different view from Protestants on the Jim Crow laws that war criminals tried to use to justify their crimes.

I would think some one at some point would have taken a harder look at Ike thinking Brown v Board was the worst SCOTUS decision in US history, and someone would have attempted to resolve that with the official view out of DC.

Or that Warren ordered Japanese Americans into internment camps but watched as California schools were ordered integrated as he was governor. And Truman's decision to integrate the military to win the election would have had an impact on returning Korean War veterans (for no reason other than watching a person of another color face death is a great equalizer).

Someone out there has either thought about it or done the research to reconcile history with this theory, or used these to refute.

If anyone has, please post the links. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.160.33.132 (talk) 19:35, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The above is a lot like a WP:FORUM anyway per WP:WORDS So-called etc has been removed.--Inayity (talk) 20:02, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

That doesn't resolve the no criticism, review by academics issue. I'm serious about this. Without criticism, review, discussion, it ranks as a fringe theory. I'm came to this while trying to understand another issue, and I find it weak. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.160.33.132 (talk) 01:46, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Considering the time you spent talking about criticism have you read this article, or are you using some other power to know what is NOT in it?--Inayity (talk) 06:15, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

And you have some magical powers to assume how much time I've spent on it?

Lawyers and judges consider the pragmatic legal implications of a philosophy, and since CRT is proposed as a theory of how the racial legal divide works, you can stretch that to be criticism. I note no noted legal scholars here, however. Gates, love him, is a pop star nowadays. Etc. I also note, no academic credentials looking at the historic or philosophical underpinnings (eg, its needs a good political science academic review). It's possible that simply has not been done, and that would be a shame.

That last particularly caught my eye. A hypothesis based on deconstruction has never been deconstructed? Seriously?

This is friendly advice, FYI. If there are divergent professional views, they need to be expressed here. If people are on wiki and looking this up, many will decide to look up articles written by people who rail against all personal identity politics (ie, those who believe diversity isn't *really* necessary). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.160.33.132 (talk) 22:10, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Critical race theory. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120301005859/http://www.habermas.org/critraceth01bk.htm to http://www.habermas.org/critraceth01bk.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:33, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Ben Shapiro
I still posit that the comments of Mr. Shapiro are not relevant to this article. His graduating law school a few years ago merely adds him to the ranks of the million or two lawyers extant in the USA. His accomplishments since graduation appear to be hosting right-wing talk radio, multiple appearances on Fox News, becoming an editor at breitbart.com, and having WorldNetDaily publish his pamphlet. I believe he falls easily into the politically-motivated category.

I believe the Pyle except from the Boston Law Review should remain, but don't think Shapiro has the credentials necessary or worthy to merit the inclusion of the derogatory statements he makes prior to introducing the Pyle text. 24.106.8.146 (talk) 19:26, 12 July 2012 (UTC) Paul
 * I just deleted an unformated, non-constructive and unsigned reaction to the above. I also fixed the spelling of "derogatory" ;) Jonny Quick (talk) 19:01, 26 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Mr. Shapiro's qualifications are as evident as any other and the cited sources meet Wikipedia's standards. Your personal disdain for sources deemed "conservative" make it no less so. Indeed the lack of criticism from the academic Left is not evidence of it being any less worthy of criticism. Thank you Ben Shapiro, please tell a friend. EyePhoenix (talk) 07:13, 14 May 2015 (UTC)


 * No. Mr. Shapiro's published views on CPT should not be categorically rejected. He is qualified to speak on the subject, and the usefulness of his comments should be considered on a case-by-case basis. The standard for neutrality you espouse is not policy and is certainly not uniformly applied elsewhere in this article to persons who are more leftist than Shapiro is conservative. His presence on media sources and formats of the kind you mention are in no way, shape, or form, grounds for an outright moratorium on citation. Lukacris (talk) 05:50, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Criticism is Sufficiently Robust for Mention in the Lede
Hi- just happened across this article so I hope I'm not rehashing a settled issue here, but the criticism of CRT seems, to me, conspicuously buried. In particular, the lede includes a lengthy blurb of appraisals, none of which include any comments by scholars who are not invested in CRT (Derrick Bell, while an important figure, is a founder of the theory, so his reserved embrace of CRT is not an antidote for imbalance). The sense from reading the article is that scholars who firmly support the theory are cited in their trivial intrepidations to give a false-sense of balance.

For instance, Richard Posner is the most-cited legal scholar in the history of the English language, but his critique of CRT is pushed down into the article. Judge Matsuda is not mentioned, while he is the (recently-retired) chief judge of the Ninth Circuit (the most liberal circuit court in the U.S. (not a controversial statement)).

CRT is rooted in the Frankfurt School, which presents a counterview to the Enlightenment-styled classical liberalism that underlays the common-law legal systems of English-speaking western democracies, and in opposition to the individualistic ethic of Judeo-Christianity (and common-law). To me more blunt, CRT (at least in the US) is not at all mainstream. In fact, it might be more fairly regarded as fringe.

IN SUM: Because (1) the critiques in the lede are not actually critiques, (2) scholars with enormous credibility vocally oppose CRT, and (3) CRT is not mainstream, I recommend:
 * REMOVE the pseudo-criticism of Bell, Williams, Crenshaw, and Matsuda from the lede because their comments don't add anything significant to an overview of CRT;
 * INCLUDE, in the lede, an acknowledgement of CRT's robust criticism and lack of broad acceptance. Posner's comments (some of which are already quoted in § Critique) are extremely valuable to this end. This addition should mention CPT's position within the movements of the Frankfurt School and Freudo-Marxism, and that these schools are not accepted in the American legal system. Lukacris (talk) 05:51, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Given there's been no objection, I enacted the change to the lede. Comment here rather than revert if there are concerns. Thanks Lukacris (talk) 21:03, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * It is absolutely not true that CRT is not mainstream, and it is ludicrous to call it fringe.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 21:22, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Could you be more specific about this (with respect to the American judiciary, in particular)? I don't have an agenda here, so if I'm mistaken, show me where. Lukacris (talk) 00:12, 16 January 2018 (UTC). And be substantive, not semantic (i.e., do more than object to my choice of adjectives). Lukacris (talk) 00:29, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

I recommend that you read (or re-read) WP:LEAD. The opening section of the article is supposed to summarize the article, not introduce material that can't be found elsewhere in the article. I can't see any discussion in the article about whether the courts have accepted or rejected CRT (with the exception of two strong-minded judges). Are their opinions representative of the hundreds of judges in the U.S.? We would need secondary sources that say that, or its opposite, before we can write such a statement in an encyclopedia article.

Likewise, the article includes excessive quotes from essays by two respected jurists (primary sources). The sentence in the lead section doesn't seem to summarize their arguments—or those of the other critics mentioned in the article. It may be accurate, but again, we need secondary sources that say what the criticism is (to avoid mis-summarizing it or engaging in original research). — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 00:43, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Western, and particularly U.S., centric?
I would love to know how CRT applies in non-Western societies, for example, how does "white privilege" make sense in using CRT to analyze countries such as China? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phymynyst (talk • contribs) 09:05, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

quite amazing that a valid point is removed from a talk page
This entry lacks a focus sentence that clearly defines the overview of the topic.

-one was offered in direct edit of the primary page and deleted thereafter within an hour -the issue was raised in talk with the talk entry deleted immediately  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.203.10.104 (talk) 02:03, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Minor error spotted
I don’t know if this is the right way/place to do this but here I am, hopefully I haven’t screwed anything up...just wanted to bring a very minor issue/error to your attention in case you are unaware of it. I clicked on “anti-subordination” (first paragraph,end of last line) and it links to the Wickepedia entry on “Insubordination.” I don’t know if there is an entry on anti-subordination to link to; if not, better no link than one that is incorrect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.197.206.8 (talk) 08:15, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ Vexations (talk) 19:56, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

President Trump has banned CRT from federal training when should we consider that notable?
President Trump has banned CRT from federal training creating a controversy. It is still breaking news so I am not certain if it merits notoriety yet, that being said I think it is a conversation worth bringing up. Vox, The Guardian, the White House itself, and CNN have described this move and the surrounding 'campaign.' Before I add something that is potentially contentious I would like to make sure that you guys agree that it is worth adding. Bgrus22 (talk) 01:19, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Seems to be noteable from reliable sources NPR, I am planning to add it to the article Social policy of Donald Trump. Ward20 (talk) 04:04, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

CRT and its origins in Marxism
The origin section of this page is inaccurate. CRT in the US first began in the 60s during the civil reform and protests. It has direct roots in Marxism. It aims to define and catorgaize people by race and once defined instructs people to look at society through the lens of race instead of inalienable freedoms of mankind. It also shares the view of Marxism where as the only acceptable answer to a debate about the matter is acceptance. Any form of rejection or alternate view point to achieve the same goal is deemed unsatisfactory and racist by perpetuators of CRT. This mentality presents itself as authoritarian, and fascist in nature much like the marxists theory it is based on. It is controversial due to this. CRT is not considered to be conducive to progress due to the fact that followers of the theory systematically repress or silence opposition or opposing thought by labeling opposition as racism. Beastwithbrains (talk) 16:50, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/03063968100510040703?journalCode=racb Beastwithbrains (talk) 16:50, 15 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Your own reference contradicts your view Khendon (talk) 13:25, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Regional Bias
I removed the Globalize template and intend to remove the subsequently added Over coverage template added by in this edit as well, but not before discussing it here. CRT is something that addresses regional US specific issues. It is not wrong for the article to focus on the situation in the US. Once we see, for example, Chinese scholars use CRT to explore Chinese issues we can add that, but let's not pretend the article is ignoring them until we have sources that show that hey actually exist. Vexations (talk) 21:00, 20 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Certainly this might be justified as long as you can cite authoritative sources that confirm that CRT is a critique that focusses on "regional US specific issues", and that casual readers are explicitly informed from the start that it does so, notwithstanding its roots in the Frankfurt school etc. Straw Cat (talk) 22:21, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Academic CRT vs. "CRT" as straw man
This article should point out that many American conservative commentators are using the term "CRT" to describe all progressive stances on race. For example the term CRT is frequently used against The 1619 Project although it does not meet the academic definition of CRT used on the wikipedia page. This Slate link does a good job at explaining the issue: https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/09/trump-takes-on-1619-project-critical-race-theory.html?via=taps_top Subcelestial (talk) 21:47, 18 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Many, many terms are used in the fashion you describe and it would be redundant to rehash that in this article or any other aside from, perhaps, those describing debate, manipulation or language itself. DiscendoDiscimus7 (talk) 00:26, 7 October 2020 (UTC)