UK academic sues university after losing role in critical race theory row

All I am reading from the explanation of CRT is that it’s saying let’s look at accepted teachings through a different lens, because accepted knowledge is based on the perspective of the dominant class.

And that's very valid. I and others have made the point that CRT (and indeed all of postmodernism) starts with valid critiques of existing structures.

The problem is that the movements and structures claiming inspiration from CRT now are a very long way past this into territory which is harmful.

In the same way: I have a lot of sympathy for Marx's analysis of the problems of capitalism in his time- I still think communism is evil.

Jaysmith I really don’t know why peoples ancestors having been enslaved or not has to do with anything. I very much doubt only white people have ancestors who were enslaved in this country(!) and what if that were even true? You can’t negate years and years of embedded racism in this country by going “ white working class have had it tough”. It’s equivalent to those men who get all bitter about feminism because some women can make a lot of money and some men are homeless war veterans. It’s missing the point of the big picture, it’s denying structural racism/ sexism exists, it’s re-writing history so that you don’t have to feel in any way culpable because you are white ( not that you should feel culpable, but it shocks me just how much white peoples are scared to ever really admit racism exists!)
All I am reading from the explanation of CRT is that it’s saying let’s look at accepted teachings through a different lens, because accepted knowledge is based on the perspective of the dominant class. I’m not saying this works in terms of science, but I can see how it goes in terms of history, and looking at the truth of what happened in the past. That’s a long accepted idea in feminism, that history was written by men and women are invisible, for example. To me it seems like CRT is an exercise in examining this concept, that of re- evaluating what is set in stone, not necessarily literally destroying all science, although some people might take it literally.
Maybe I’m wrong, I’m not an academic, but that’s how it reads to me.
This thread started about an academic throwing insults on social media, now it’s “poor working class white people” ?

And I have said before: We are not American. The history of the interaction between new Commonwealth immigrants and the white working class is a subject of study in its own right: From the Windrush passengers who marvelled at the sight of white men doing manual labour on the Tilbury quayside, to Rachmann and the eviction of older white women to convert their properties into mass-housing for immigrants, to Powell and his invented example of such a women who got dogdirt through her letterbox, in all probablility the work of a Rachmannist landlord if it ever happened, and so on.

Another related concept is 'Decolonising the Curriculum,' a worthy idea that has predictably been crudely warped to condemn To Kill A Mockingbird and Tow Sawyer as 'racist,' and before you know it you're on your way to racist maths and science because black people can shoot ligthning from their fingers, etc.

But that’s not what these wealthy types are saying their not comparing to their peers their making sweeping generalisations based on race and that’s Rasict

I don't think I can address that in a way that doesn't agree to accepting sweeping generalisations.

This is an area for nuance and I can plainly not add anything to it in a way that is useful.

I've said this before here: people understandably don't like the word 'privilege'. If you're a homeless, jobless, white man it must be galling to be told you have 'privilege'.

I prefer the word 'advantage'. In the case above the homeless white man could probably accept he has some advantages over homeless women or homeless black people.

The white working class are the only people in this country whose ancestors were slaves in this country. The consequences of medieval feudalism are alive and well today with the patterns of wealth and actual privilege in this country today. Do not patronise them.

I’m piecing this together now I think and seeing how it builds out of poststructuralism.

Yes, it's inherently poststructuralist.

So we could see this in Marxist terms as a sort of mystification?

I think it acts in that way in some instances. It hides the details of how inequality might be addressed behind this fog of positive sounding twaddle.

To build on another poster's point about educational outcomes: CRT would rather we decolonise the maths curriculum by challenging the racist stereotype that 2+2=4 rather than asking why the data says some communities perform really badly in maths.

(I'm parodying, but only just).

Yes, think I’m getting it but need to do a lot more reading. Are we due a return to Marxist theorising after all this post structuralism? Sometimes seems like that to me.

That's fine upthefrogs. My suggestion would be to critically assess anything on this thread, whether in support of CRT or against it, and decide what looks reasonable or what in your view requires further reading. It's the Enlightenment way and I'm still waiting to see a better approach.

It's better than the approach of totting up oppression points and then deciding that the winner's views must simply be accepted as outlined by donquixotedelamancha.

@donquixotedelamancha thanks for that. I’m piecing this together now I think and seeing how it builds out of poststructuralism. It feels as though it would be easy to fall for this if you are not able to see how it actually paradoxically supports current power structures? So we could see this in Marxist terms as a sort of mystification?

As far as I can get to, in simple terms, is that I’m aligned with CRT’s basic idea that racism is embedded in structures and systems

That's not particularly a CRT thing. What CRT does differently is to not accept that structures and systems can help address problems- e.g. anti racism laws or positive discrimination are bad if they are 'white'. To CRT criticising racism is much more important than trying to fix things.

CRT fundamentally rejects liberalism- it's opposed the idea that reason can be used to address racism or that equality of opportunity is acceptable.

If that’s right then I can’t work out how this relates to Crenshaw’s intersectionality which would suggest something more complex than this

CRT is informed by narratives of 'lived experience' and rejects data. People who feel themselves to be oppressed are not to be challenge , especially by facts. Thus the more axies of oppression someone can claim the more valuable their views- it leads to a kind of oppression bingo where you will see people preface a statement with the irrelevant fact that they 'identify as' black, queer, disabled and trans.

@nauticant thanks for that definition. I can take some parts of that and go along with it. I think all conversations about equality are about power and therefore they are inevitably political. I think that claims to rationality and neutrality are problematic because they are always time and place specific and tend to benefit existing elites. However I do not think we should base all equality claims on subjective feelings and beliefs as that takes us towards recognition at the expense of redistribution, which is where inequalities get resolved. Have I misunderstood that? I think I might be struggling as I am trying to map this onto left : right but advocates of a liberal approach seem to be right leaning, a more traditional Marxist approach is left, while CRT seems apparently progressive but in fact borrows from some fairly non progressive ideas which situate people of colour as inevitably oppressed. Am I hopelessly confused?!

White Privilege doesn’t mean all white people are privileged! Just like male privilege doesn’t mean all men are privileged

But that is exactly what some proponents of CRT espouse.

A rich Black footballer, or a female prime minister don’t negate the fact that racism and sexism exist! I would expect anyone to understand that on this board tbh.

I think everyone does understand that. 10 years ago I think anyone arguing here against CRT and it's Libfem equivalent would have been ridiculed by many. The last decade has made feminists very wary of postmodern critical analysis because it's the intelectual foundation for lots of practice which directly harms women; as CRT is being used to justify overt racism in this case.

Hi all been following this with interest and still fairly baffled. Thanks for answering my questions though. As far as I can get to, in simple terms, is that I’m aligned with CRT’s basic idea that racism is embedded in structures and systems (ie not simply a matter of unconscious bias for eg). However from what I can gather CRT also suggests people of colour are oppressed in all circumstances, by white people, while white people always have relative privilege and power, no matter what their class status. (If that’s right then I can’t work out how this relates to Crenshaw’s intersectionality which would suggest something more complex than this, unless in her hierarchy white men are always at the top.) Anyway, I also think that i’m aligned with the basic idea of race as a social construction which has material effects, but people here are suggesting that the more important difference is class, which is material and objective and tells us more about relations of hierarchy than treating race as always indicative of oppression, which in itself is racist, essentialist and deterministic. Am I close? For critics of CRT?!

. It means that if you are both male and white you don’t have the EXTRA things that can create obstacles in a society set up for “ the default”. A rich Black footballer, or a female prime minister don’t negate the fact that racism and sexism exist! I would expect anyone to understand that on this board tbh.

really I must remind the large portion of looked after white men who end up homeless that they will feel loads better I will tell them by every metric your going to be worse off but at least you not gonna have a Rasict experience

Blakes77

I can only go on what people who use the term say

It’s like when progressives now trying to convince everyone they don’t really mean defund the police 🤷‍♀️Well that’s what the banners say

If you don’t mean all white people have privilege the woke stop saying it because that’s what eveyone here’s them saying

Word salsa just like the tra
Trans women are women
We don’t really believe men can turn into women me 🤷‍♀️Then stop saying trans women are women then

EmbarrassingAdmissions
But that’s not what these wealthy types are saying their not comparing to their peers their making sweeping generalisations based on race and that’s Rasict

They say like all CRT grifters that all white people no matter their circumstances have white privilege over all black and Asians no matter that black persons background or circumstance

So in their own logic a white traveller child whose is illiterate and who’s parents are illiterate have more power and privilege than David lammy 🧐 or Trevor mc Donald

In my view if you think you can tell weather or not you can telly ANYTHING about me from the colour of my skin you are a Rasict

The only thing I can tell about a white person from looking at them is the colour of their eyes because their are lots of people who look white who are not

Because I am not a racist

I like said if you ever fostered or adopted it would make you feel sick to have someone dare say the words white privilege honesty if

White Privilege doesn’t mean all white people are privileged! Just like male privilege doesn’t mean all men are privileged.. what it means is that white male is the “default”. It means that if you are both male and white you don’t have the EXTRA things that can create obstacles in a society set up for “ the default”. A rich Black footballer, or a female prime minister don’t negate the fact that racism and sexism exist! I would expect anyone to understand that on this board tbh.

Jaysmith71 Or the posh leftists like Diane abbot and chakrabti private school for me but not for thee or David loud mouth lammy

"White Privilege" like "House Negro" is an American concept derived from American history, in which penniless illiterate East European migrants arrived in the country and immediately had more rights than black US citizens.

We have class in Britain. Boy do we have class. And "White" is not a class. Take a look at the posh black Tories; Kwasi Kwarteg, Bim Afolami, couple of Old Etonians there, or Rishi Sunak who had to slum it at Winchester.

I am so lucky I am not a black footballer on 150 grand a week much rather be a abused white child in foster care how lucky am I

In general terms, I'd think the typical version of the argument would be that privilege is not about the individuals in any particular case but about the privilege of a class as a whole.

As a crude example, I would not be surprised if the black footballer in this hypothetical case were subject to more police stops while driving than a white footballer (to use a peer comparison).

And while I'm blundering around in territories where I shouldn't be treading I shall throw Zito Madu into the mix:

The feeling of dread before Saka took his penalty betrayed a truth about the relationship between the Black English players and members of their country. The wish for Saka to score in order to avoid racist abuse only reveals a deeper truth: that respect for him as a person and recognition of his dignity is only possible if he and the other Black players keep making the people who hate them happy. A conditional respect of a person’s humanity, which means that it’s no recognition at all. […]

It was heartening to see some fans, teams and politicians push back against the bigotry by showering the players with love and support. A group of people decorated the defaced Rashford mural with hearts. Yet, while the players surely appreciate the support, and hopefully will one day have a chance to have success at the highest level, it’s not hard to imagine that they will never forget that many of their supporters see them as sub-human — and no level of sporting achievement will change that.

www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/07/13/soccer-racism-dignity-black-players-england-saka-euro-cup-rashford/

@Jaysmith71
Amen I used to foster and the fact the wealthy political class white and black say ALL white people have privilege is just 😳

Tell that to some of the children I fostered who have been abused or been disabled through actions of neglect 🤷‍♀️

Yeah their all like I am so lucky I am not a black footballer on 150 grand a week much rather be a abused white child in foster care how lucky am I 🤷‍♀️😳

We're on the way there with the insistence that white working class boys who grow up on the same estates as the black boys they go to school with are beneficiaries of 'white privilege,' notwithstanding the fact that African heritage boys do significantly better in school than their white or West Indian neighbours.

@ineedsun couldn’t agree with you more

When you have leftists with bLM labels in their Twitter bio calling black people C**n because they don’t feel their oppressed having woke people screaming at me yes you are and if I don’t agree I am a tool of the white man

Blakes77

The next jump from this that all white people contribute to systemic racism
Do all men contribute to systemic sexism? I would say yes, probably, whether they realise it or not.
Bookmark
and this is why I am not a feminists
Rasicts say all black people …… their in good company who new the far right would have to just sit it out and wait for the far left to make collective guilt a thing again