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

[RoyalCorgi]

Guardian story:

www.theguardian.com/world/2021/aug/16/uk-academic-sues-university-losing-role-critical-race-theory-row-leeds-beckett

This is pertinent here for two reasons. One is that the academic who is suing Leeds Beckett is using the argument that "critical race theory" is a protected belief, using the Forstater case as a precedent:

"In June, finding that gender-critical views were a protected belief, the employment appeals tribunal said only views akin to nazism or totalitarianism were unworthy of protections for rights of freedom of expression and thought under the Equality Act."

The other is that critical race theorists tend to support the trans/queer theory agenda. In this particular case the academic in question was apparently sacked from her advisory role by Leeds Beckett University after her organisation tweeted to a black person first that he was a "house Negro" and then that he was a "coconut". Apparently these terms are part of standard discourse in critical race theory and so should be protected under the law.

And there was me thinking they were just terms of racist abuse...

[quote highame]@upthefrogs from what I've read, companies are adding more diversity to their boards and also supporting diversity in their advertising, who they give money to etc., support visibly (that could be one of the reasons trans rights has been bumped up the agenda, it's a new group to band-waggon). I read/listened to a webinar where 'greenwashing' was used as a comparator. Companies with no intentions of greening had departments focusing on the environment and these departments grew and grew. The same has happened with the equality - the companies employ diversity guru's who then grow their departments to the point where they have massive influence over all matters of policy. The departments can move through all the diversity groups at random and companies look like they are thoroughly on board with equality, but they are only interested in the superficial equality, not paying more equal wages.

It has become more obvious recently with big tech, who are 'taking over the world' with massive wealth for some whilst the workers (of all groups) are paid poorly. Things might have got worse for workers since the 'equality bandwagon' of CRT took off. It's new and therefore holds the attention of the young more than class based theory. If you look at the old style Marxists - they haven't changed their view, Class is important. Same with GC feminists, sex is the oppressor as opposed to third wave, who think language matters. In all cases, the superficial is a bullseye for capitalism, can earn as much as you like and widen the equality gap, whilst pandering to the academic interpretation....and the Harvard guys get to keep their positions in society - top of the pile

Hope you get the drift, only on my second coffee.[/quote]
Sounds like Clinton feminism. Behold Hillarry on Oprah / Ellen. Or talking to Sheryl Sandberg about the glass ceiling. Why aren't there more female billionaires like us ? Sob. Then astonished the women in rustbelt states can't be arsed to vote for her. But I digress.

Critical race theory is the most perverse nonsense I've ever encountered.

It starts from a position that all white people are racists and seeks to find evidence of this wherever it can.

It's good to see these divisive ideologues destroying each other.

How should anti-colonialism deal with science?

nauticant

That video is quite chilling, to think that those stupid, backward, ignorant people are students at a university.

@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.

I would say that this kind of approach to the idea of patriarchy is in many cases very much a type of critical theory.

One of the typical tells with CT is that they have rather fuzzy definitions of what constitutes racism, or patriarchy in this case, and especially that they struggle to describe the material basis for it's action. So, for example, a CRT proponent may say that blacks are more often stopped by the police than whites, but their explanation for that is racism. Even if the people police themselves are black, or the chief of police, or the mayor, the answer is systemic racism. They often have quite fuzzy explanations of the set of causes and actions which creates the actual material fact of more black drivers being stopped and looking for such explanations is seen as denying racism.

With patriarchy, the question is the same - what is the material cause. Classically feminism will say, it's caused by women and men having different kinds of bodies. But there is a strong CT approach by some that resists much more than that, and wants to make patriarchy the explanation rather than the description of the observation.

I suspect that one of the appeals of CRT is that it's easy and you get to place blame pretty indiscriminately. You don't have to do the hard working of looking at how disparities emerge, thinking about whether they are really a problem, or what it would really take to prevent or mitigate them, and whether that is even possible or something that might have it's own downsides.

[quote nauticant]How should anti-colonialism deal with science?

[/quote] Not the first time black consciousness has shovelled the guano mountain in the batcave:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yakub_(Nation_of_Islam)

That video reminds me of the book Love Over Scotland. In it, the six year old Bertie, a child prodigy, inadvertently ends up at a university lecture by a prominent deconstructionist. The deconstructionist begins going on about doing away with all kinds of things, including physics. Bertie wonders aloud if he would say the same thing when he was on a plane going across the channel, and the students begin to pass the comment around the lecture hall, and they all laugh the deconstructionist out of the room.

@donquixotedelamancha

Critical race theory says race is a social construct used to oppress people of colour and which begets systemic racism’. Can someone explain to me how this is racist?

That's not racist, it's a statement of the obvious and not at all limited to just CRT. The problem comes from some dumb extrapolations of CRT.

The next jump from this that all white people contribute to systemic racism. That gets a bit sweeping and simplistic for my taste, but you can see the point.

Next you might assume that all black people are oppressed. I've seen suggestions that employers shouldn't expect black employees to be punctual or accurate 'because it's colonialist'.

The real batshittery is when you argue that some black people are 'politically white' because they don't see themselves as victims.

Before you know it you end up with the most important, defining, immutable characteristic of people being their skin colour.

So interesting, thank you.

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

@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

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.

@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 🤷‍♀️😳

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/

"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.

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 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.

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

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

. 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

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?!

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.

@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?!

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.

@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?

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.