Talk:Critical race theory/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Semi-protected edit request on 10 May 2021

Critical Race Theory is the Theory that all white people are racist, and is being used to help destroy the white community. It is the belief that other races are and can be superior to white people, and that white people should submit to the will of other races. It helps teach white children that they are born evil, helping them to feel guilt, so that other races can be elevated, showing their superiority. The goal of Critical Race Theory is to aid in the systematic removal of all white people from society, to be interned into concentration camps, not unlike those that existed in Germany, so that all whites can eventually be exterminated. 2600:1700:F990:1730:CDA0:60E4:BD96:2947 (talk) 19:44, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:48, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 March 2021

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This page should start with the following warning (much like is similarily being done now with Facebook and twitter with such articles):

WARNING: Critical Race Theory is highly controversial as being written with racist bias against white skinned people .

This page should also state the following rule for determining such bias which is:

DETERMINING RACIST BIAS IN ANY MEDIA. There is a simple way to tell if any article or other media you are reading or viewing has a racist bias in its point of view: simply swap out the nouns in the article with another of a different identity. For example, swap out the word "white" with the words "jew" or "black" or "gay" in the Critical Race Theory Wikipedia article to make your own determination if it was written from a racist bias point of view.

LogicFilter (talk) 19:09, 28 March 2021 (UTC). LogicFilter (talk) 19:09, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

 Not done Your personal opinion of critical race theory is irrelevant. Please review the guidelines for making edit requests before making another one. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:20, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Associations Between Postmodernism and CRT

I am noticing a problem present across many articles. It is often asserted, with no evidence, that this or that topic is in some way influenced by postmodernism. It seems like a profoundly irresponsible practice, given the political connotations the label has taken on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quietus III (talk • contribs) 15:04, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

@Quietus III: Agreed. "Postmodernism" is a vague umbrella term that needs to be more carefully defined in order to be useful. It is true that the label is highly politicized in 2020. Often it seems to be used as a generic smear with no real meaning besides "I don't like this." -- ℜob C. alias ALAROB 14:46, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

The problem is that CRT itself uses the word "postmodernist". However, I agree that it has an unfortunately negative connotation not intended by CRT practitioners. DenverCoder9 (talk) 05:13, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Since CRT itself uses the word "postmodernist", the article should mention that CRT is postmodernist. DenverCoder9 (talk) 01:19, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Which reliable sources refer to CRT as "postmodernist"? Surely the only way to decide this is based on sources. Newimpartial (talk) 01:31, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Lehigh source

Hodgon's Secret Garden helpfully included the following academic source:

*Narizny, Kevin (2021). "The Flawed Foundations of Critical Race Theory". Lehigh University.

It was reverted by Newimpartial. It belongs in this article because it is an academic reference work. Just because it is an online source does not mean it doesn't belong in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by User:DenverCoder19 (talk) 01:31, 12 March 2021

The source is not "published" by Lehigh University; it appears to be a poorly curated personal web page. Why would it be DUE for inclusion? Newimpartial (talk) 01:34, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. Seems to be an associate professor in international relations, so non-expert in this field. His papers seem entirely unrelated. Jlevi (talk) 04:26, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

They're not even his papers; it's just a list of quotations from a handful of other scholars plus a hefty dose of blog posts, op-eds, and books from non-academic publishers. There's no original content on the page apart from the title. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 06:18, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Re: a list of quotations from a handful of other scholars plus a hefty dose of blog posts, op-eds, and books from non-academic publishers - this is what I was politely referring to as "poorly curated". :) Newimpartial (talk) 14:02, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

(1) "Woke" (2) James Lindsay

I moved the below comment here from my talkpage.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 17:04, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Greetings. I reverted your addition to the lead of Critical race theory. Just because CRT may be an important part of wokeness doesn't mean wokeness is important to CRT. There is a lot of good scholarship available on CRT; I don't think a Vox article is very authoritative in that context. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:42, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

1. Here are the results at Google Scholar for the search "'woke'; 'critical race.'"
2. nytimes [1] - "The Campaign to Cancel Wokeness: How the right is trying to censor critical race theory. By Michelle Goldberg. . How the right is trying to censor critical race theory. ... Every embarrassing example of woke overreach . ."
3. city-journal [2] - "Critical Race Fragility: The Left has denounced the 'war on woke,' but it is afraid to defend the principles of critical race theory in public debate. [By] Christopher F. Rufo. . The Left has denounced the “war on woke,” but it is afraid to defend the principles of critical race theory in public debate. . ."
4. usatoday [3] - ". . Economic leftists must ditch wokeness. . . [By] Wilfred Reilly . . [I] recently wrote a critique of a major popular text of critical race theory, Robin Diangelo's best-selling White Fragility. . ."
5. telegraph [4] - "Woke Teaching Has Been a Disaster for Working Class Kids [By] Calvin Robinson: Critical Race Theory may be cloaked in the language of equality but it has benefited only a narrow elite. . ."
   --Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 17:00, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, this just proves my point. Of the top five Google Scholar results, Result #1 is a set of first-person accounts by three graduate students; two of them mention CRT as important to their personal "wokeness". Result #2 is a primary research paper analyzing "woke" advertising through a CRT lens. Result #3 and Result #4 are using "woke" as a verb in the past tense. The next full-text result is a review of a book called Woke Gaming; the review mentions "feminist and critical race critiques" of pop culture as background to the main subject. There's no substantive examination of "wokeness" as an important term or concept within CRT itself in these sources. The rest of the links are opinion pieces in newspapers (City Journal is published by a conservative think tank). As such they are primary sources for the authors' opinions, nothing more. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:28, 4 March 2021 (UTC) edited 22:02, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Agree that this is undue based on this sourcing. Jlevi (talk) 20:59, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

As this article now stands, there's zero mention of the ubiquitous one-/two-syllable short-hand terms woke/wokeness, etc., – for the overall field on which CRT has had so much influence – at all: an unfortunate oversight. User:Sangdeboeuf's belief the opinion sources are "are primary sources for the authors' opinions" isn't disputed; however, what is pertinent to our discussion here is the that something approaching Feature-article level coverage of controversial topics is often only achievable through balanced use of notable opinion pieces; otherwise, an imbalance results in favor of the pov's of proponents of the theory or otherwise-controversial subject under review: for example, in my opinion, this Jan. 10, 2021 article, "What Is Critical Race Theory?," by New Discourses's editor, James A. Lindsay – who has also co-authored more than one book-length treatment of issues very pertinent to the topic at hand (including, in 2020, with Helen Pluckrose, Cynical Theories: How Activist Scholarship Made Everything about Race, Gender, and Identity―and Why This Harms Everybody) – satisfies this requirement of notability for our purposes here. See wikiguideline Neutral#Bias in sources; the essay "RS may be non-neutral"; & wikiguideline "PARTISAN":

From Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Bias in sources: "...biased sources are not inherently disallowed based on bias alone, although other aspects of the source may make it invalid. Neutral point of view should be achieved by balancing the bias in sources based on the weight of the opinion in reliable sources and not by excluding sources that do not conform to the editor's point of view...."

Wikipedia:Neutrality of sources#Reliable sources may be non-neutral

One of the perennial issues that arises during editor disputes is how the neutral point of view policy interacts with the reliable sources guideline. Arguments often arise which contend that a given source ought to be excluded as unreliable because the source has an identifiable point of view. These arguments cross a wide variety of topics and stem from a common misunderstanding about how NPOV interacts with RS. The neutral point of view policy applies to Wikipedia articles as a whole: articles should reflect an appropriate balance of differing points of view. The reliable sources guideline refers to a source's overall reputation for fact-checking and reliability--not the source's neutrality. Reliable sources may be non-neutral: a source's reputation for fact-checking is not inherently dependent upon its point of view. A frequent example that arises in this type of discussion is The New York Times, which is the leading newspaper of record in the United States yet which is sometimes said to reflect a left-wing point of view. If that presents a problem within article space, the problem is not reliability. The appropriate Wikipedian solution is to include The New York Times and also to add other reliable sources that represent a different point of view. The Wall Street Journal and National Review are reliable sources that present right wing points of view. Left-leaning The Village Voice might also be cited. The appropriate balance can be determined from the undue weight clause of the neutrality policy. Overall, good Wikipedian contribution renders articles objective and neutral by presenting an appropriate balance of reliable opinions. It requires less research to argue against one reliable source than to locate alternate reliable sources, which may be why neutrality/reliability conflation is a perennial problem. This phenomenon is global rather than national. For instance, with regard to Middle East politics the Jerusalem Post presents a view of events that is distinct from Al Jazeera. Generally speaking, both sources are reliable. When these two sources differ, Wikipedian purposes are best served by clearly stating what each source reported without attempting to editorialize which of the conflicting presentations is intrinsically right.

Wikipedia:PARTISAN:

Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject.

Common sources of bias include political, financial, religious, philosophical, or other beliefs. Although a source may be biased, it may be reliable in the specific context. When dealing with a potentially biased source, editors should consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control, a reputation for fact-checking, and the level of independence from the topic the source is covering. Bias may make in-text attribution appropriate, as in "Feminist Betty Friedan wrote that..."; "According to the Marxist economist Harry Magdoff..."; or "Conservative Republican presidential candidate Barry Goldwater believed that...".

--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 18:12, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Lindsay & co.'s opinions have received notice within such independent RSes as the following:

1. economist [5] - “Cynical Theories”, a forthcoming book by Helen Pluckrose and James Lindsay, two writers, argues that the two systems of thought are incompatible. One reason is that the constellation of postmodern thinking dealing with race, gender, sexuality and disability, which they call “Theory”, disempowers the individual in favour of group identities, claiming that these alignments are necessary to end oppression. Another is Theorists’ belief...
2. thetimes [6] - Cynical Theories by Helen Pluckrose & James Lindsay Review — Woke warriors are conquering academia: This book exposes the brainlessness in today’s universities. Douglas Murray fears that it may have arrived too late
3. spectator [7] - Cynical Theories: How Universities Made Everything About Race, Gender and Identity — and Why This Harms Everybody [By] Helen Pluckrose and James Lindsay [review]
4. usatoday [8] - James Lindsay has literally drawn up an entire line of flash cards breaking down the various contemporary left-wing meanings for terms like “racism.”
5. city journal [9] - Most of my nonfiction reading lately has, sadly, been about critical race theory and identity politics. Cynical Theories, by James Lindsay and Helen Pluckrose, is an invaluable primer for anyone trying to understand what this new set of jargon means and what its architects intend.
6. spectator [10] - As Helen Pluckrose and James Lindsay put it in their book Cynical Theories, the question is not ‘Did racism take place?’ but ‘How did racism manifest in that situation?’ Those trained in critical race theory are apparently uniquely qualified to make such determinations; the rest of us have to take them on faith.
7. commentary [11] - In Cynical Theories, dissident academics Helen Pluckrose and James Lindsay bear a timely warning: Destructive ideas, built to take aim at liberal democratic capitalism, will have destructive consequences. These ideas, known as Critical Theory, Social-Justice Scholarship, or just “Theory,” openly acknowledge their appetite for destruction. Adherents to Theory reject the authority of science, view liberalism as oppressive, and deny the possibility of objective knowledge.
8. worldnews [12] - James Lindsay, has been promoting the book he wrote with his colleague Pluckrose, Cynical Theories: How Activist Scholarship Made Everything About Race, Gender, and Identity—and Why This Harms Everybody. According to the authors, it began in the 1960s—like so much else—with the broad acceptance of postmodernism as an academic philosophy.
9. ozy [13] - James Lindsay, one of the three scholars, along with Areo magazine editor Helen Pluckrose and Portland State philosophy professor Peter Boghossian. However, Lindsay added, “a culture has developed in which only certain conclusions are allowed … the fields we are concerned about put social grievances ahead of objective truth.”
   --Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 18:47, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Do any of these, aside from the interview (!) with Max Eden, actually mention Critical Race Theory? If not, I wonder why you think they make Lindsay's views any more relevant to this article. Newimpartial (talk) 18:56, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

My suggestion is our use of Lindsay's article, "What Is Critical Race Theory?" Sorry if this was misunderstood. (Although I could have, I in fact had not suggested particular use here of Pluckrose & Lindsay's Cynical Theories – which has its own Wikipedia article – rather, I'd cited the book's RS mentions to show how its co-author has been recognized as a notable voice about this topic's overall field: According to Wikipedia, P&L's book "Cynical Theories contrasts the academic approaches of liberalism and postmodernism, then argues that "applied postmodernism" (which focuses on ought rather than is) has displaced other approaches to activism and scholarship. The authors present several academic fields and schools—postcolonial theory, queer theory, critical race theory, intersectionality, fourth-wave feminism, gender studies, fat studies, and ableism—and describe how the "applied postmodernism" approach has developed in each field."--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 19:16, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

That doesn't sound like a reliable source on Critical Race Theory, and a lot of interviews and op-eds that do not mention Critical Race Theory won't make Lindsay's views more due for inclusion here. And "New Discourses" doesn't seem reliable for anything except the views of its author, which doesn't help with the WP:DUE problem. Newimpartial (talk) 19:22, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

User:Newimpartial, What do you mean by "doesn't seem reliable? Pluckrose & Lindsay's opinions about CRT obviously are of sufficient note. (I mean, How many of their fellow commentators on CRT have had their views reviewed in The Economist?) Mere reference to a demonstratively notable, if contrary, opinion cannot be undue weight, no such problem can be averred.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 19:40, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Does the Economist piece you cited make reference to Critical Race Theory? Not that I can see, but I might be mistaken.

And by "doesn't seem reliable", I mean it doesn't appear to meet WP:RS requirements. Newimpartial (talk) 21:08, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

HSG, you'll need to explain why we would treat New Discourses as a reliable source. Please reference WP:SOURCE, which explains that articles should be based upon reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Is ND independent of James Lindsay? Does ND have an established editorial and fact-checking structure? Does ND have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy? If the answer to any of those questions is no, then we're dealing with a self-published source, and our use of self-published sources on the encyclopedia is extremely limited. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:43, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

• The point is that 'woke' is a neologism (sometimes used in a pejorative sense, although that wasn't its original meaning; originally it was more of a rallying-cry.) In both uses its weight is more emotional than factual - it doesn't convey anything to connect a topic to it. So (partially for WP:TONE reasons) we'd need sources that show that it's actually important to understanding this topic somehow, not just a handful of sources that use the term in passing. And generally speaking a bunch of opinion pieces or passing mentions connecting a topic to the "woke threat" aren't meaningful - you could find similar low-quality opinion pieces connecting any political topic to the latest political memes and buzzwords; what your sources show is that those commentators use "woke" as a bete noire shorthand to refer to anything they disagree with at the moment, which is hardly a surprise. We already include conservative arguments and opinions regarding CRT in the article (often at length); but 'woke', in the way they use it, isn't an argument or an opinion, it's a rallying-cry. We can't generally include those for WP:TONE reasons, not without much better sourcing than this to show that it's actually significant that they've used their current rallying cry in this context. --Aquillion (talk) 20:20, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

User:NorthBySouthBaranof et al: Why the sophistries? Please do note that (1) Lindsay's work has been reviewed in prestigious media outlets and his opinion pieces published in a variety of opinion magazines. (2) Ay ay ay, of course ND is not indie of Lindsay, in that it's edited and largely written by him; however, WD is indie of the scholars-developing-CRT: which is what "independent" means in the context at wp:RSes! (3) As for WP:SELFPUB, please note: "Self-published material is characterized by the lack of independent reviewers (those without a conflict of interest) validating the reliability of content. [...E]xamples of self-published sources include press releases, material contained within[...]material published in media by the owner(s)/publisher(s) of the media...." Yet, "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications."--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 18:49, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Something approaching Feature-article level coverage of controversial topics is often only achievable through balanced use of notable opinion pieces – I doubt this. Taking a few examples from WP:FA § Culture and society, our articles on the Apollo 15 postal covers incident, Macedonia (terminology), and Same-sex marriage in Spain don't cite a single opinion piece, though the topics are/were definitely controversial. Do you have some examples of other WP featured articles that do this?

Biased sources are not inherently disallowed based on bias alone, although other aspects of the source may make it invalid – exactly. Most of the sources you linked are primary sources for one person's opinion or another. WP articles should be based mainly on secondary sources.

Neutral point of view should be achieved by balancing the bias in sources based on the weight of the opinion in reliable sources and not by excluding sources that do not conform to the editor's point of view – no one is suggesting we exclude sources based on their POV. Due weight of opinions based on reliable sources is exactly what most editors here are going for, I think.

Reliable sources may be non-neutral ... sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective – that's not an argument for any of these specific sources. Just because we can use them doesn't mean we should.

When dealing with a potentially biased source, editors should consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control, a reputation for fact-checking, and the level of independence from the topic the source is covering – from what I know, Lindsay & Pluckrose's work does not meet these requirements. They authored a polemic which seeks to debunk academic theories but was not itself academically vetted prior to publication. Their involvement in the grievance studies affair directly links them to the topic, meaning they are not independent from it.

Lindsay & co.'s opinions have received notice within such independent RSes – most of these are not reliable for factual content. I already mentioned City Journal; The Spectator, Commentary, and World are opinion sources. OZY is a fairly new player in the media sphere; I'm not sure how much weight we'd give it. (And it explicitly calls Lindsay & co. "fringe".) Additionally, news coverage of recent controversies like the grievance studies affair is often disproportionate to their overall significance and should be handled cautiously.

Lindsay's work has been reviewed in prestigious media outlets and his opinion pieces published in a variety of opinion magazines – that's what opinion magazines do. They publish opinions, often controversial ones. That doesn't mean his (non-expert) opinion is relevant for our purposes. CRT is but one of the many fields and schools swept up in Lindsay & co.'s anti-wokeness dragnet.

[ND] is indie of the scholars-developing-CRT: which is what 'independent' means in the context at wp:RSes – debatable, as I mentioned above regarding "grievance studies", but independence from the topic is only one consideration; the other is a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. I advise you to strike your "sophistries" comment here.

Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications – James A. Lindsay is a mathematician. Please show where his work in the field of critical race theory has been published in reliable sources equivalent to other CRT scholars, namely peer-reviewed or other academic publications (not counting hoax papers, obviously). —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:11, 6 March 2021 (UTC) edited 21:40, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

The blurb at the end of the ND piece says: "[James Lindsay] is the founder of New Discourses and currently promoting his new book 'Cynical Theories: How Activist Scholarship Made Everything about Race, Gender, and Identity―and Why This Harms Everybody.'" I think the bolded part tells us everything we need to know about this source. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:46, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

As I wrote on Talk:Woke, I fear that you are conflating "critic" and "expert." I would not dispute that James Lindsay is a critic of "wokeness/CRT/whatever." I would strongly dispute that Lindsay is an expert about those things. He has no academic background studying CRT, there is no evidence that he has published any peer-reviewed research on CRT or, honestly, any non-polemic work about CRT, and he has publicly declared that the social justice movement is his ideological enemy. Those are not the words and deeds of a disinterested "expert" in a field. No one would describe Michael Moore as an "expert" on conservatism, despite the fact that he has published numerous books and directed an Oscar-winning documentary discussing conservatism - he is a polemicist and critic of conservatism. Similarly, James Lindsay is not an "expert" on critical race theory, despite the fact that he has published a single book discussing critical race theory - he is a polemicist and critic of critical race theory. His self-published opinion is nothing more than that - his own self-published opinion. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:06, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

James A. Lindsay is, in fact, an academic and his opinion is certainly notable. DenverCoder9 (talk) 01:04, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Is there any evidence that Lindsay's views on Critical Race Theory are notable? Because I haven't seen any, and I did ask before. Newimpartial (talk) 01:08, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Lindsay has a Ph.D in mathematics. That confers zero academic credibility as to anything outside the sphere of mathematics. We don't cite linguists as experts on astrophysics, and a mathematician isn't an expert in sociology. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:05, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Glenn Loury

I reverted an edit removing a quotation by Glenn Loury as WP:UNDUE. Glenn Loury is an expert in Systemic Racism; has worked at Harvard and wrote a seminal book on the subject, The Anatomy of Racial Inequality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DenverCoder19 (talk • contribs) 01:15, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

His book is not recent, relevant scholarship; positive consensus would have to be reached before including it, and I'm not seeing any. Newimpartial (talk) 01:28, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Systemic racism or institutional racism is not the topic of the article. According to Loury's faculty bio, his most relevant expertise would be on the economics of race, rather than race and the law. His 2002 book The Anatomy of Racial Inequality doesn't mention CRT once. His writings on systemic/structural racism appear on such sites as Quillette (the Intellectual Dark Web's "blog of record"), as well as conservative think tank The Manhattan Institute and its magazine City Journal, not peer-reviewed journals or other academic publications. I don't see anything to suggest his views on CRT are WP:DUE. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:35, 12 March 2021 (UTC) edited 10:32, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 March 2021

The word "scholar" is redundant and referenced too many times in this article. It needs to be substituted and re-written in certain parts of the text. Some sentences need to be reconstructed entirely.

Thebiggening (talk) 14:27, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Please provide specific edits you'd like made. Thanks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:41, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Idaho

​​​ Regarding this recent edit: diff. I see no issue including 1-2 sentences regarding this issue based on this sourcing. I do think we should concentrate on the substance of this (conservative state House members in Idaho vow to vote down education budget on the issue of Boise State's position on social justice and critical race theory), rather than a quote from a particular representative. Sound fair? Is better sourcing needed? Is 1-2 sentences too much or too little? Jlevi (talk) 18:32, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I think a little more detail is okay, and no problem with the sourcing, but quoting particular politicians is not necessary for this overview article. MartinPoulter (talk) 20:12, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

I broadly agree. It's a very specific political issue, a mostly rhetorical connection, and a relatively small sum of $$$, but the sourcing is certainly there. And if the section gets too lengthy eventually, that's what splitting is for. So good--agreed. I can take point adding that material unless Ripley Connor wishes to add the shorter version. Jlevi (talk) 20:24, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Does this article need to be tagged for its imbalance?

Struck. (I'd overstepped, some, about alleged imbalance.) --Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 20:35, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

What's allowed to be contributed to this article seems to be curated so as to only include material by CRT's proponents, it seems. (If this is not true, please show me where contrary opinions have been allowed to stand here.) Come on, folks! Rather than editors here doing so according to Our Own Private Idaho, I'd advise we reacquaint ourselves with Wikipedia:BALANCE about curbing idealist's tendency to avoid covering both sides pro and con of controversial issues promoting ideologies and also Wikipedia:NOTADVOCACY about promotion of any ideology, no matter how deserving. I personally find many of the premises of CRT very appealing (as I do, as well, e.g. Marxism); however, the type of curating as has been practiced in this article simply ignores WP's foundational principles (e.g., wp:N & the guidelines about the necessity of using biased sources in encyclopedic coverage of contested theories that I've cited above).

Anyway, such article-sourcing curating I believe in the long run to be counter productive, in that I think that a theory becomes strengthened, not weakened, by means of its criticism – in that by its weathering the same, it proves itself fit for exhibiting continuing influence and importance. Ironically, a major way in which certain scholars find fault with CRT is the theory's supposedly requiring that its ideological proponents' brook no dissent (yesterday called "political correctness" and today, "woke": and, not for nothing, I see that their concerns bolstered by the fact of a contribution of mine here's (of an academician's break-down of sources-in-criticism of CRT I'd added to this article's Further Reading section; diff) being deleted).--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 18:29, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

WP:BALANCE doesn't mean we include any and all dissenting opinions from the punditocracy, such as the James Lindsay source and others you linked above. It explicitly means drawing on secondary or tertiary sources that describe the disagreement from a disinterested viewpoint. We have that in the form of numerous scholarly references such as journal articles, an academic encyclopedia, and Britannica, among other sources.

Far from including only the views of proponents, there's an entire § Critical reception section, which directly cites detractors of CRT including George Will, Daniel A. Farber, Suzanna Sherry, Jeffrey J. Pyle, Richard Posner, and Alex Kozinski. If anything, the article is unbalanced toward the critics by citing them directly instead of the aforementioned secondary or tertiary sources. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 18:57, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

User:Sangdeboeuf, OK, yeah, so-called "punditry" (that 1920s coinage by the coinventor of the modern newsmagazine alongside Luce, Hadden) is chargeable anybody who, sure, tweets, self-publishes essays, publishes them in outside opinion journals as well, as Lindsay does. However, he'd already co-published Pluckrose's and his scholarship in this particular area of the social sciences in the 5th chapter of Cynical Theories (Pluckrose & Lindsay, 2020, wsj- usatoday- & publishersweekly bestseller): "Critical Race Theory & Intersectinality."--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 20:35, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Lindsay is certainly an "expert" in his own criticism of Critical Race Theory, but where is the evidence that it would be DUE to include this, along with the (better-qualified) critics? Newimpartial (talk) 20:48, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The Secret was also a bestseller. That doesn't make it a reliable source for anything other than its own contents. From what I can tell, Cynical Theories was not academically peer-reviewed or published by an academic publisher, so it isn't "scholarship" for our purposes. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:55, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

[James A. Lindsay] publishes research based on fact and evidence. The fact that he is critical of critical race theory does not discount his opinion. I don't think Hodgdon overstepped at all. DenverCoder9 (talk) 01:06, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

But what evidence is there that his opinion is expert, or notable, or both? I'm have not seen any, only bald assertions. Newimpartial (talk) 01:12, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Lindsay is a mathematician, not a sociologist, political scientist, or legal scholar. His polemics on CRT have no weight whatsoever. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:13, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

I think it's needlessly dismissive to suggest that a lack of formal training means his ideas have no weight at all. It's sufficient to say that a Wikipedia page about CRT doesn't need to include every objection to it or critique of it, rather than undermine his expertise by suggesting someone needs a Sociology degree to make an argument about social issues. He has written with co-authors who are more formally qualified in related fields, which I would suggest points to a degree of expertise not afforded to an independent writer (that is, if formally qualified people are sharing credit with Lindsay's ideas, those ideas are given nonzero weight). I'm neutral on whether he should be included in the critiques section of this article, but if it's decided against then I don't think it should be solely because of his PhD being in Mathematics. He has also recently testified on New Hampshire legislature related to prohibiting the instruction of CRT, and one might be inclined to say that influencing government decisions at that level means his ideas do have weight, even if not in the rigorous academic sense. 98.113.91.134 (talk) 16:04, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

I am dismissing Lindsay as an expert not because of his training, but because his writings on CRT have not been vetted by the scholarly community. His co-authored book was not published by an academic publisher. His testimony before the N.H. lehislature gives his opinions zero weight in a Wikipedia sense. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:52, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Do I understand you correct, that you want to tag CRT as a fringe theory? As there were no sociologists, historians and political scientists among original authors of CRT (there were lawyers, but it is insignificant in racial cross-discipline studies). Otherwise, there are no wikipedia rules that critic section should contain only academia opinions. It just should be notable and shouldn't be a fringe. So reverting Lindsay critic will only get you banned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.228.182.250 (talk) 12:37, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 April 2021

The section titled "White Privilege" currently reads: The property functions of whiteness – i.e., rights to disposition; rights to use and enjoyment, reputation, and status property; and the absolute right to property – make the American dream more likely and attainable for whites.. Please remove the link on the word disposition, as the linked article discusses an unrelated concept.

To explain: In the context of property, the right to disposition necessarily means the right to sell (and therefore to lease, rent, etc.) the property - and not anything to do with tendency to act in a specified way. (This concept is clearly explained in nearly every source I can find - I can provide links on request - with a Web search for right to disposition of property except, curiously, the Wikipedia article on "Right to property".) It's obvious that this supposed "white privilege" does not actually entail any such right; there is no means by which a white person can, in exchange for a sum of money, cause a non-white person to become white, either temporarily or permanently. For our purposes, though, I'm pretty sure that's irrelevant - since the goal is not to highlight the obvious flaws in Harris and Ladson-Billings' analogy, but to ensure that it is accurately portrayed.

(I am assuming here that this sentence about property is intended to actually relate to the prior discussion about property-qua-metaphor; if it is intended instead to discuss actual-recognized-by-law property and its implications, please let me know so I can revise the request.) 174.93.4.134 (talk) 11:52, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

 Done ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:07, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Edit Request 04/28/2021

I don't actually know how to submit an edit request for semi-protected pages, but in the first lines of the history section is andre cummings. I assume that he's this andré cummings, in which case his name includes an accent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bra71l (talk • contribs) 19:24, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

 Fixed. Thanks for noticing it. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:06, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Style edit to 1st sentence of lede?

The 1st sentence currently reads: "Critical race theory (CRT) is an academic movement made up of civil-rights scholars and activists in the United States..." Just some feedback: Reading this article for the first time, I briefly misread "made up" as meaning "this movement is fake/imagined/deceptive." That is to say: I briefly misread "made up of" as "made up by." If anyone else agrees that this is a potential misreading, I would suggest simply deleting the words "made up." The movement is "of" or "by" scholars and activists. Tuckerlieberman (talk) 14:53, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Good feedback, thanks. Is this change better? Jlevi (talk) 16:33, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree that "of" is clearer and more concise. "Led by" seems to imply a hierarchy of power & influence, which I'm not sure is accurate. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:48, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

I see it says simply "of" now. Looks great to me! Thanks. Tuckerlieberman (talk) 00:58, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Should be entirely rewritten, preferably by someone with some sort of knowledge of Critical Theory. Critical Race Theory is, of course, the application of Critical Theory as applied to race. This entry is almost entirely made up of incorrect information. Simply see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_theory to verify. There's a reason why the 2 articles say completely different things, and it isn't because this one https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_theory is wrong...

Semi-protected edit request on 21 May 2021

Currently reads: Critical race theory (CRT) is an academic movement of civil rights scholars and activists in the United States who seek to critically examine the law as it intersects with issues of race and to challenge mainstream liberal approaches to racial justice

Edit: Critical race theory (CRT) is an academic movement of civil rights scholars and activists in the United States who seek to critically examine the law as it intersects with issues of race and challenges inequities within the judicial system and public policies. LadyRioKo (talk) 06:43, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. There has been discussion of the opening sentence above, so I'm not going to change it without discussion and consensus. Thanks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:07, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Clarification

I have asked for clarification for examples of white privilege: "a shop attendant not following a person around in a store or people not crossing the street at night to avoid a person". NOTE: I am not denying that these examples may illustrate white privilege. But they are inadequately explained. If I have an annoying acquaintance and I avoid them by not crossing the street, that's not white privilege. If a clerk in a store follows me (a white person) in a store because he thinks I have shoplifted, that's not an example of white privilege. I'm simply asking for clear explanations, but the self-appointed owners of the article don't seem to think that's reasonable. Sundayclose (talk) 00:39, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

I think it's clear from the overall theme of the article that these examples refer to white people not encountering these behaviors on account of their skin color. But to avoid any confusion, I've added the adjective "white" to the statements in question. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:37, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Fortunately, Wikipedia content is not determined by a sole editor's opinion about what is "clear". What is clear is that such an assumption of ownership is not how Wikipedia works. Your recent attempt at clarification is an improvement but inadequate. Simply following someone in a store is unclear. The white privilege exists when a white person is not presumed to be guilty of something that is assumed for a person of color. This is basic writing skill that is taught in high school English classes. I added additional clarification, and I think it's safe to assume that removing my edit would be yet another example of WP:OWN. Sundayclose (talk) 14:43, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

wording under "Common themes"

The "common themes" section currently says "Critical race theory scholars question foundational liberal concepts such as Enlightenment rationality, legal equality, and Constitutional neutrality, and challenge the incrementalist, step-by-step approach of traditional civil-rights discourse." The source cited here refers to "equality theory, legal reasoning, Enlightenment rationalism, and neutral principles of Constitutional law."

In my view it makes sense to change "rationality" to "rationalism" here; "rationalism" more or less means a theory of rationality, while "rationality" means reasoning itself. If the difference isn't significant, the change won't hurt, and if the difference is significant, then "rationalism" is more accurate, since it's what the quoted source says. Mwphil (talk) 02:13, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Pretty sure I added that sentence; not sure why I wrote "rationality" instead of "rationalism". The change makes sense to me. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:49, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

OK, made the change! Mwphil (talk) 11:59, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Critical Race Theory: social transformation, affirmative action and quotas

My read of the article is that Critical Race Theory (CRT) challenges the traditional liberal approach of affirmative action, among other things, yet the article goes on to say that CRT supports "social transformation" with such measures as "quotas". If quotas is a specific example of affirmative action then it is self-contradictory to say CRT rejects affirmative action but supports quotas. It seems this contradiction should be resolved.

Michael Matthews, PhD2601:6C1:C103:3E50:9999:FB28:1D67:E94B (talk) 17:47, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

This article is completely wrong that's why. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_theory to verify and remove all doubt. This article, clearly, does not describe Critical Theory as applied to race, which is what Critical Race Theory is. This isn't new, as Habermas was clearly detailing these issues before Knowledge and Human Interests in the early to mid 60's as anyone who's actually educated in this field can attest. For example " Intersectionality – which emphasizes that race can intersect with other identities (such as gender and class) to produce complex combinations of power and disadvantage – is a key concept in critical race theory.[9]" is utterly ridiculously false with the article itself utterly denying this claim. This 'entry' is a train wreck as basically any philo minor can detail. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:4B:300:5480:60C3:9DD5:AD5E:C7EA (talk) 23:26, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a reliable source. CRT and Critical Theory are distinct according to sources cited in the article. If there are published, reliable sources that say otherwise, feel free to present them here. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:51, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Need an abstract or introduction

This entire article has no real introductory abstract on what critical race theory actually IS. It should lead with something with an overarching theme. Something that encompasses most aspects of it in a paragraph. Reading it, the article is more a collection of quotes and responses more than a true encyclopedia entry — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maomatt (talk • contribs) 07:59, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

How about: Critical race theory (CRT) is an academic movement of civil rights scholars and activists in the United States who seek to critically examine the law as it intersects with issues of race and to challenge mainstream liberal approaches to racial justice ... Critical race theory is loosely unified by two common themes: first, that white supremacy, with its societal or structural racism, exists and maintains power through the law; and second, that transforming the relationship between law and racial power, and also achieving racial emancipation and anti-subordination more broadly, is possible? --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:20, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

The opening paragraph is way too vague. I read it twice and still don't know what the topic is about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Countytime (talk • contribs) 15:25, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

CNN article

It's an opinion article but might be helpful - it's by the historian Nicole Hemmer with an interview in the video with another historian, Peniel E. Joseph .[14]. Doug Weller talk 12:48, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Spelling error

My goodness! Could you not spell discipline correctly? Please correct SigiWäldner (talk) 19:00, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

SigiWäldner,  Done, but the snark isn't a great way to interact in a collaborative environment. Girth Summit _(blether) 19:33, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Apologies, sincerely! Just disappointed when an important piece is spoiled by a glaring error and then locked up. SigiWäldner (talk) 00:21, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Criticism

I think that using some kind of "review" article on the academic criticism of CRT will serve this article better. I know (for a certainty) that two of the three criticisms (which currently find a mention) is hardly significant. As stated by policy, tertiary sources can be very helpful in assigning due weight. TrangaBellam (talk) 15:06, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Books like Delgado, Richard; Stefancic, Jean, eds. (2012). Critical Race Theory: An Introduction, Second Edition. NYU Press. ISBN 978-0-8147-2134-6. JSTOR j.ctt9qg9h2. TrangaBellam (talk) 15:13, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

You're probably right. Do you have a suggested change, for those of us without access to that book? GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 17:05, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

I will start editing the page, soon. You might check out López, Gerardo R.; Warren, Chezare (2015-05-29). "Critical Race Theory". Oxford Bibliographies in Education. Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/obo/9780199756810-0124. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help) in the meanwhile. Please send an email, if you wish to check out the book. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:29, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Both sources you have mentioned appear to be by proponents of critical race theory - I read the description of the one, and regarding the other, Delgado is a foundational figure in the field. They can still be used for criticism if they contain such material, but criticism from scholarly sources independent of CRT is also a good thing. WP:RS prefers independent sources. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:33, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

You have neither read the book (the sixth chapter is literally titled "Critiques and Responses to Criticism") nor have an idea about how Oxford Bibliographies are written. The idea that these are not "independent sources" does not make any sense. TrangaBellam (talk) 04:50, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

No, I haven't read that book and never claimed to. I don't mean to seem as though I am making some sort of ruling, I am just emphasizing the importance of a diversity of academic sources. Honestly, we probably agree on that. I'm just trying to be completely clear and head off future disagreement on an article that can be controversial. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:11, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Split out an article about 2020s controversies?

Should we split out a separate article to discuss 2020 usage of the term in the United States, and the surrounding controversies? The contemporary usage diverges pretty dramatically from the historical/academic usage, and a handful of discussions above mention this confusion. The theory itself is notable, and the 2020s controversy in the US seems like it also could be sufficiently notable for a standalone article (with a brief description here still, of course). GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 17:03, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

I think we can cover both the academic aspects and the recent political aspects in this article (at the moment). I think the lead does an OK job at describing the general gist of CRT (as I understand it and I'm definitely not an expert on this), but it's missing a clarifier on what kind of CRT that conservatives are railing against. I think the content reverted in this edit[15] should be restored because it succinctly clarifies what conservatives are railing against (a mish-mash of various left-wing ideas that they consider to be CRT). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:12, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

I reverted that because it's WP:RECENTISM and WP:UNDUE. If included, it would make Rufo the only individual whose views are explained in the lead. Given that he's just some right-wing activist, that doesn't look encyclopedic, but myopic. The WP:LEAD is supposed to cover broad strokes, and it mentions the recent conservative opposition that way. If people want details, including the bit about Rufo, they can read the body for that. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:44, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Purely from a WP:SIZE perspective, I don't think a split is needed. The article currently has just 24,000 characters or 24 KB of readable prose (or 4,300 words). Coverage of the anti-CRT movement will surely grow (at least until the 2022 US midterms, after which I predict conservative activists will forget it ever existed), so in the future a split may be more advisable. After 6 months to a year we should have a pretty good idea of what has gotten sustained RS coverage and what's recentist fluff.

Whether the recent controversies are about a different topic is more complicated. On the one hand we have usage by right-wing activists such as Christopher Rufo, who openly said his goal is to redefine CRT as anything "unpopular with Americans". On the other hand, some of the anti-racism programs being targeted "reflect foundational themes" of CRT according to The Washington Post. It might be useful for readers wondering what all the fuss is about to have a full description of the actual academic movement in the same article as the recent GOP legislation, and splitting off the new material could encourage POV forking. On the other hand, keeping it here could overburden the article with a lot of passing controversy. I can see the pros and cons of either approach. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:39, 22 June 2021 (UTC) edited 06:11, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

what about an article called "Racial discrimination studies in public education in the United States?" (I copied the title from Creation and evolution in public education in the United States.) Then we could explain what has actually been taught, as well as efforts to stop it. TFD (talk) 01:49, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Oppose split and I agree with Sangdeboeuf that a split could encourage WP:POVFORK issues; I see this as far more likely to be a problem. While it is true that the Republicans are overusing this term, I'm not seeing evidence for the opposite - i.e. that the sort of anti-racism training and ideas that became more widespread in 2020 have nothing to do with critical race theory. The Washington Post, as quoted above, stated otherwise. Size-wise, a split is not needed at this time. Maybe in the future it will be, maybe not. It all depends on whether proponents or opponents continue fighting or one side largely drops the subject, and there's just no way of knowing. WP:NOTNEWS and the like also should be kept in mind regarding excessive detail. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:27, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

What's wrong with having an article about anti-racism training and ideas that became more widespread in 2020 and mention in the reactions section that Republican legislation against it has included critical race theory although AFAIK it's not taught in schools? It wouldn't be a split or fork of this article. TFD (talk) 05:21, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

TFD's suggested title makes a lot of sense to me—the 2020s controversy is really centered on how racism is taught in schools, not CRT (though to Crossroads' point, CRT is certainly a portion of it). GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 14:45, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Doesn't an article on that already exist: Diversity training? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:56, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't think so. That article focuses on corporate diversity trainings, whereas much of the recent CRT FUD is focused around the teaching of about racism in secondary education. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 15:14, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

"CRT FUD" – nice. Not to be confused with CAT FUD, of course. Also, I think you mean "teaching about racism" ;-) --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:19, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 June 2021

You must add something about CRTs Marxist roots. It is 100% based on Marxist and neomarxist theory. 72.173.140.117 (talk) 13:47, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:50, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

The article already says, "Both critical race theory and critical legal studies are rooted in Critical Theory, an approach to social theory established by members of the Frankfurt School, which argues that social problems are influenced and created more by societal structures and cultural assumptions than by individual and psychological factors." Incidentally, that distinguishes it from liberal approaches to racism, such as the 1619 Project, that attribute racism to individual choices. Is there anything that you think should be added (and please provide sources)? TFD (talk) 14:36, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

gibberish

This sentence is completely unintelligible. Let's have someone rewrite it so that it makes sense.

Critics including George Will see resonances between critical race theory's use of storytelling and insistence that race poses challenges to objective judgments in the U.S., as exemplified by the acquittal of O. J. Simpson.Cdg1072 (talk) 13:29, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

-- Whats unintelligible about it. It means exactly what it says it means. Duckmonster (talk) 14:08, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

If you think "objective judgements" is intelligible, you have no business what so ever attempting to contribute to the application of Critical Theory to anything, period. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:4B:300:5480:60C3:9DD5:AD5E:C7EA (talk) 23:29, 24 June 2021 (UTC)