Fruit_Inspector

But let's assume that it is full on critical race theory. That this is for all intents and purposes identical. Let's also assume that it is being taught in every classroom in America.

Because I have found there are many people who are intentionally deceptive when claiming CRT is not being taught or implemented anywhere outside of upper level college classes. Anyone who is familiar with CRT should know better.

It is not. It is a college level course.

Is it being taught in public schools that racism is mainly systemic, that this systemic racism is a normal and perpetual reality that affects all our social institutions and practices, and that "individual racism" is often just a symptom of these deeper systemic issues?

In general no.

In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.

Speculation at best.

No cosmological model claims to know what if anything caused the aforementioned event.

Let's cut through the baloney shall we? You are asking "why is there stuff rather than no stuff?" and the answer is I don't know and neither do you. It is unknowable. Ineffable. Beyond our epistemological limitations as a species.

Critical race theory is the advanced study of the effects of racism.

Someone should be examining the past and current effects of past and current racism on past and present society both to minimize racism (by recognizing it) and to address inequalities caused by racism past and present.

How familiar are you with CRT?

I am familiar with it in the same way someone who knows algebra is familiar with calculus why?

That is why there is a need of critical race theory to he taught at the college level...

Why is there a need?

If we do not remember the mistakes of the past we are destined to repeat them.

Asymmetry in the production of matter and anti matter particles in the early moments of the universe.

The "freedom" of representatives democracy is an illusion. As for a revolution there is no revolution and if there were you would know .

Critical race theory is almost never considered in policy creation or application.

That is why there is a need of critical race theory to he taught at the college level...

So God's judging America and making it more gay? Why? Isn't this all his doing anyway?

Really I think you are making this more complicated than it has to be.

I'm actually working this out as I go and you are helping.

what of people that cant work (disabled, etc)

And the harder you work, the greater your "need."

This does not logically follow.

No. It is based primarily upon your need... but how hard you work and what kind of work is a better yard stick than how much wealth you have.

Your passions are not covered in your basic needs. If just not starving or freezing to death is enough for you that fine but you don't get anything else.

No such obligation exists now. What if no one wants a job doing dirty work? What if you cannot pay them enough to do it? How would you force them too if the money you can afford to offer isn't enough? I don't think I have any problems you don't also have to contend with.

Then you have no argument. Your entire argument hinges upon something that we agree, at least for the sake of this argument, is not compelling.

This is not a reason to believe to believe in the bible before it happens. When the evidence is in is the time to believe not before. Why anyone should care about what the bible says now? Like what evidence is there that the bible is more than a fable?

• "And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper, being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; they are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful; and although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them." (Romans 1:28-32)

I'm not sure it is morally correct but it is better than coercing them with the threat of homelessness and starvation enforced by the threat of police violence which is our current system. 

Here is the problem. You think people will have to he coerced and I think it is wrong to coerce people. 

Ok so the bible says some nasty homophobic things.

The question is why should anyone care what the bible says?

And what happens when no one wants to volunteer to pick up trash and clean up sewage? We can't pay anyone to do it so...

I tell you what I wouldn't do is threaten them with homelessness and death by starvation.

It is silly to think that we shouldn't pursue the idea of ending employment because it might make the world dirty.

This is what employment has done to us. We think we cannot even justify taking care of ourselves. This is what I mean. When you think of dirty work as undesirable instead of just another necessary chore.

Social interaction would still exist and your social standing would be in the toilet if you refuse to help clean the toilets. I think you underestimate how powerful social pressure can be.

Now no one will respect you or treat you like an adult. That is what we will do.

Don't you shame people who don't want to work now? People that live off their families or the government?

Then grow up and do your share of the dishes.

Are you saying that you are to good to do that kind of work?

What happens at your house when no one feels like doing dishes? Cooking? Mowing the lawn? Cleaning the bathroom? Do these things simply go undone because they are unpleasant and no one is being paid to do it?

I'll remind you that the OP thesis was:  "parents are taking their kids out of public school because public schools are teaching CRT"

Now, your latest post doesn't even mention CRT- you've moved on to your dissatisfactions with the definitions of racism generally.  I'll take that drop as concession. 

Critical Race Theory is a fairly sophisticated legal critique of 20th Liberalism and  not being taught in public schools- parents who say so are responding to a piece of false political propaganda that originated on FOX News last year and repeated on Republican News sites, sometimes at a rate of 12 per day.

The NEA doesn't dictate school curriculums any more than the United Auto Workers dictate what's on the production line or the Teamsters dictate UPS routes.  The ultimate authority for school curriculum lies with state governments who traditionally leave most of the details to local school districts and school boards.  Then principles, dean, and other school mgmt, then teachers.

And it is this critical praxis that is the cause for many parents pulling their kids out of school. While they may not articulate it clearly, that is a good reason.

Nope. No K-12 schoolchildren are learning "critical praxis." They can't articulate it because it is not there.

We are talking about public schools generally, where 4 out of every 5 teachers are non-Hispanic White. 78% of school board members are White. While I am sure you can find some kooky teacher somewhere preaching universal oppression by the whites- I refuse to believe that public schools are generally teaching that all minorities are oppressed in everything they do and that the American establishment must go.

There is the game. You are misusing the term racism in order to insert your foreign definition into the conversation.

Nonsense. I'll rely on Mirriam-Webster:

RACISM [noun]

1: a belief that race is a fundamental determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race

2a: the systemic oppression of a racial group to the social, economic, and political advantage of another 

2b: a political or social system founded on racism and designed to execute its principles

Please explain how Mirriam-Webster's definition of racism seems "foreign" to your and how your definition of racism differs.

anti-racist

variants: or ANTI-RACISM

Definition of anti-racist

: opposed to RACISM

As the Atlantic Monthly article demonstrated, CRT did not exist in the American conversation until Fox News put it there last summer. FOX News is the origin point for your misconceptions about CRT, whether or not you know it.

• Raising children's consciousness about racism is not teaching the legal theory CRT, as you concede when you say "even if [teachers] are not teaching the particulars of [CRT]....". This is the point where where our disagreement ends since my argument is only that teachers are not teaching the particulars of CRT and so claiming as much is a fake, invented, false reason to pull your kids out of school.
  

Objections to raising a child's awareness on most any subject is a poor reason to pull your kids out of school.

Raising children's consciousness about racism is a necessary part of American learning. I don't know how you teach American history, society, literature, etc. without raising consciousness about racism in America.

I have no objection to teaching (high school) children how to identify the means of oppression and how to non-violently dismantle those mean.

I could not have been more clear on this, I don't know why you are pretending otherwise. I said:

"....you are mis-characterizing anti-racist speech as CRT."

If FOX News had not been misinforming you for the past year, you would not now be trying to argue that anti-racist classroom conversation are "engaged in praxis that founded upon the ideology of CRT." FOX News taught you that- not law professors and certainly not classroom observation.

So placing the focus of the argument on whether schools are "teaching CRT" is simply a distraction of definitions

Beg pardon but I firmly believe there's no point in debating until both sides are in agreement on definitions. Definitions are an essential pre-requisite and never a distraction because the debate can't be truly engaged until definitions are resolved.