with Shep Melnick
This was one of the best episodes of the show I've heard. So much light with no heat at all, even though you covered plenty of contentious issues. His point at the end about Tocqueville was sopt on. The anti-CRT folks have a real tendency towards conspiratorial thinking, attributing decentralized changes in society to the actions of an organized clique of radicals with aligned and coordinated interests. This is not how the process of belief formation (including the emergence and dissemination of falsehood) works in my opinion. Just my two cents.
In other news:
"Ibram X. Kendi's Antiracist Research Center at Boston University fires almost HALF its 45 staff, as ex-workers claim he had too much power and brand him EXPLOITATIVE
Woke activist Ibram X. Kendi's Antiracist Research Center at Boston University had laid off up to twenty members off staff
Boston University confirmed the center had made 15 to 20 workers as the center moves towards a fellowship model
Former and current staff alleged that the center had been poorly managed "
Interesting fellow. On any possible ban of CRT; I believe the intent of a ban would be to prevent harm downstream. In behavioral science we don’t know if X causes Y (or co-occurrence, association, correlation, causation); until after we do the research. But CRT determines causation in Situation X before any research is conducted. I would like to hear your guest “Shep” argue about how a CRT discussion would not result in harm. Tragically- CRT is referenced by “Defund Police” enthusiasts as justification for making crime unpunished.
Eighty percent of 'conservatives' seem to consider Justice Gorsuch a traitor over Bostock, but I think he threaded the needle. As y'all say, that was about Employment, and it was about expectations pertaining to individual appearance and behavior, when those behaviors have little to do with the job itself, and all about allowing and expecting a female to do one thing, while requiring a male to do another and vice versa. And that, in Gorsuch's view, amounted to discrimination on account of the actual biological sex of the individual. And the court avoided, for the time, wrestling with the implications of gender as distinct from sex. As y'all say, that hasn't yet come to the Supreme Court, although a couple of circuit courts, in the bathroom and locker room cases, have taken the easy path of equating self-professed gender to 'sex'
But in my mind, that is standing Title VII on its head. Title VII is intended on the one hand to allow greater opportunities for females, but on the other hand, in order to do so, it deliberately created some protections, such as women's athletics. TItle VII presumes that 'sex' in a real difference, and in protecting some rights, it affirms that there is such a difference. But by reading too much into TItle IX, prohibiting 'stereotyping', we get to proposition that the main reason not to 'stereotype' is that there are no 'types' to begin with, and we can't tell the difference and shouldn't try to tell the difference.
With racial discrimination and Civil Rights, and with the recent Higher Ed cases, it comes down to, even if we think there are differences and reasons to act ('affirmatively' or otherwise) on the basis of those difference, we just must not go there, because we don't understand the differences well enough and never will. With 'sex', we damn well know the difference. With 'gender' , 'roles', and 'sexuality', maybe we don't understand. But with basic biology, the law shouldn't pretend to be dumb.
The real question is how an issue that effects 1 out of 10,000 has taken hold of the socio/political conversation.
Too many of our nation have abandoned reason. There is no bottom to the slope; the slide must be stopped by an outside influence.
This is a very sound critique of intersectional feminism. Extend it to lesbian separatists and the political positions Malcom X, and you have woke.