Well, every time I try to explain CRT to my trumpite husband, it goes like this:
Me: CRT is a theory that is only taught in law schools. It is not taught in public K-12 schools [where I worked the last 10yrs of my career].
Him: Yes it is, you just didn’t know about it.
Me: Send me something substantial about it and I’ll be glad to look it over.
Him: I will!
And that is yet to happen, because he can’t. And by substantial I don’t mean some overwrought person yelling about it at a school board meeting or Senator in a hearing on a highly-qualified Black woman SCOTUS nominee 🤦♀️. I mean a school district’s curriculum. Hasn’t happened, won’t happen, cause it can’t happen - there’s no there there.
Did just order the Delgado Stephancic CRT book, 3rd ed. “ Updated to include the Black Lives Matter movement, the presidency of Barack Obama, the rise of hate speech on the Internet, and more.” Hoping between my MLS and paralegal cert from UNC-Charlotte I’ll be able to understand it well enough to be understandable and persuasive about the subject.
This is an interesting shift. I do believe that CRT is an interesting lens to use. Though, I do wonder how its leanings towards standpoint theory will handle traditional historical methods. I would love to hear your thoughts.
Thanks so much for taking the time to comment. You just brought me back to my days as a graduate student in philosophy reading Helen Longino's SCIENCE AS SOCIAL KNOWLEDGE. I am not sure exactly what you mean by "traditional historical methods." What I really wanted to emphasize is the value that theoretical frameworks have in helping us pose new questions of the past.
Let me also suggest that I don't want to overstate things here. The point of the post was not intended as an argument to make CRT part of a high school history curriculum, but to suggest that we need to reject the fearmongering of Republicans and their attempt to cast educators as the enemy. Thanks again.
Well, every time I try to explain CRT to my trumpite husband, it goes like this:
Me: CRT is a theory that is only taught in law schools. It is not taught in public K-12 schools [where I worked the last 10yrs of my career].
Him: Yes it is, you just didn’t know about it.
Me: Send me something substantial about it and I’ll be glad to look it over.
Him: I will!
And that is yet to happen, because he can’t. And by substantial I don’t mean some overwrought person yelling about it at a school board meeting or Senator in a hearing on a highly-qualified Black woman SCOTUS nominee 🤦♀️. I mean a school district’s curriculum. Hasn’t happened, won’t happen, cause it can’t happen - there’s no there there.
I want to be a fly on the wall in your house. :-)
Did just order the Delgado Stephancic CRT book, 3rd ed. “ Updated to include the Black Lives Matter movement, the presidency of Barack Obama, the rise of hate speech on the Internet, and more.” Hoping between my MLS and paralegal cert from UNC-Charlotte I’ll be able to understand it well enough to be understandable and persuasive about the subject.
LOL :-D
This is an interesting shift. I do believe that CRT is an interesting lens to use. Though, I do wonder how its leanings towards standpoint theory will handle traditional historical methods. I would love to hear your thoughts.
Hi Conor,
Thanks so much for taking the time to comment. You just brought me back to my days as a graduate student in philosophy reading Helen Longino's SCIENCE AS SOCIAL KNOWLEDGE. I am not sure exactly what you mean by "traditional historical methods." What I really wanted to emphasize is the value that theoretical frameworks have in helping us pose new questions of the past.
Let me also suggest that I don't want to overstate things here. The point of the post was not intended as an argument to make CRT part of a high school history curriculum, but to suggest that we need to reject the fearmongering of Republicans and their attempt to cast educators as the enemy. Thanks again.