First, one of my favourite examples of a white man being a force for desegregation is Edward R Murrow (the man who would expose McCarthy as a charlatan in the 1950s as well as being one of the pioneers of broadcasting news) in 1930 desegregates NSFA (National Student Federation of America) and does so at the Biltmore Hotel, Atlanta (a place which was segregated) -- unfortunately for the hotel management, Murrow was wise to the tricks and had several things written into the contract such as all delegates from the named colleges will be seated and able to participate fully. He interspersed names of HBCU between the names of better known organizations and the manager did not notice. He also had the Black delegates seated next to hand picked white women at the dinner -- knowing that the Black delegates who be refused service, he simply had the women pass their plates to Black delegates and thus they were served first. Apparently the waiters were in stitches about it. Murrow also arranged for a Southerner to be reporting on it for the NYT and that man was able to forestall problems from the Texan delegation. At the end of the conference, the Federation was desegregated with more than a dozen Black colleges and universities as full members. Prior to Murrow's intervention, only Howard was a member.
Second, in the UK, the UK government has warned on a number of occasions that CRT can only be taught if it is made known that it is a highly contentious theory where there is a lot of political disagreement rather than as absolute fact.
The real trouble with the praxis of CRT is that it attempts to impose a specific and dogmatic philosophical belief which runs contrary to many religious beliefs and therefore runs the risk of running contra to the Expression of Belief clause in the 1st Amendment. If parents are not allowed to teach their children, their religious/philosophical beliefs instead of a state imposed doctrine -- how can one say one has freedom of religion? Because of Engels v Vitale (USSC 1962) among other cases, the moral teaching of children to should be left to the parents and not imposed by the state.
It is about how do you teach about the problems of racism and legacy of segregation without visiting the sins of the past on the youngest generation. I do think there are ways to do it effectively without resorting to CRT praxis.
Finally, it is very hard to dismantle segregation, including soft segregation such as that which has existed in the romance genre of publishing, in particular Harlequin has been struggling with this since 2017 when they decided rather than having a series line devoted to African-American voices (they had purchased the publishing wing of BET back 2004 but had not undertaken the work to fully integrate), they would have African-American (and indeed underrepresented authors) writing for all the lines and being sold globally. The barriers have been unexpected and the work is ongoing, but they are pressing ahead and even historical (which was the most problematic in many ways) does now have African-American writers writing about successful Black heroes and heroines in a historical context.
On the controversy over banning critical race theory in schools, I find these points in Christopher Rufo's recent Quillette article important:
(1) Public schools do not have First Amendment rights. And the fact is that the status quo, the existing state of affairs, is that state legislatures get to decide what’s in the curriculum and what’s not in the curriculum. They get to decide what to include and what to exclude.
(2) Critical Race Theory practice in education . . . compels speech that violates the conscience of students, and it manipulates people as young as four and five years old into a racialist ideology that violates the sense of basic dignity. These are vulnerable kids who are compelled to be in these state institutions, and you have to offer them greater protections.
Parents who really want critical race theory can vote it in. There are, alas, some who do.
Several things:
First, one of my favourite examples of a white man being a force for desegregation is Edward R Murrow (the man who would expose McCarthy as a charlatan in the 1950s as well as being one of the pioneers of broadcasting news) in 1930 desegregates NSFA (National Student Federation of America) and does so at the Biltmore Hotel, Atlanta (a place which was segregated) -- unfortunately for the hotel management, Murrow was wise to the tricks and had several things written into the contract such as all delegates from the named colleges will be seated and able to participate fully. He interspersed names of HBCU between the names of better known organizations and the manager did not notice. He also had the Black delegates seated next to hand picked white women at the dinner -- knowing that the Black delegates who be refused service, he simply had the women pass their plates to Black delegates and thus they were served first. Apparently the waiters were in stitches about it. Murrow also arranged for a Southerner to be reporting on it for the NYT and that man was able to forestall problems from the Texan delegation. At the end of the conference, the Federation was desegregated with more than a dozen Black colleges and universities as full members. Prior to Murrow's intervention, only Howard was a member.
Second, in the UK, the UK government has warned on a number of occasions that CRT can only be taught if it is made known that it is a highly contentious theory where there is a lot of political disagreement rather than as absolute fact.
The real trouble with the praxis of CRT is that it attempts to impose a specific and dogmatic philosophical belief which runs contrary to many religious beliefs and therefore runs the risk of running contra to the Expression of Belief clause in the 1st Amendment. If parents are not allowed to teach their children, their religious/philosophical beliefs instead of a state imposed doctrine -- how can one say one has freedom of religion? Because of Engels v Vitale (USSC 1962) among other cases, the moral teaching of children to should be left to the parents and not imposed by the state.
It is about how do you teach about the problems of racism and legacy of segregation without visiting the sins of the past on the youngest generation. I do think there are ways to do it effectively without resorting to CRT praxis.
Finally, it is very hard to dismantle segregation, including soft segregation such as that which has existed in the romance genre of publishing, in particular Harlequin has been struggling with this since 2017 when they decided rather than having a series line devoted to African-American voices (they had purchased the publishing wing of BET back 2004 but had not undertaken the work to fully integrate), they would have African-American (and indeed underrepresented authors) writing for all the lines and being sold globally. The barriers have been unexpected and the work is ongoing, but they are pressing ahead and even historical (which was the most problematic in many ways) does now have African-American writers writing about successful Black heroes and heroines in a historical context.
On the controversy over banning critical race theory in schools, I find these points in Christopher Rufo's recent Quillette article important:
(1) Public schools do not have First Amendment rights. And the fact is that the status quo, the existing state of affairs, is that state legislatures get to decide what’s in the curriculum and what’s not in the curriculum. They get to decide what to include and what to exclude.
(2) Critical Race Theory practice in education . . . compels speech that violates the conscience of students, and it manipulates people as young as four and five years old into a racialist ideology that violates the sense of basic dignity. These are vulnerable kids who are compelled to be in these state institutions, and you have to offer them greater protections.
Parents who really want critical race theory can vote it in. There are, alas, some who do.