CRTease

It is very difficult, if not impossible, to win a debate (and in some cases to even have one) if one starts by accepting a hostile framing offered by an interlocutor. So I was somewhat surprised when I came across this in the I Side With political quiz:

My first response to this was: Why on Earth would one teach a graduate-level legal theory in K-12? (For those of you outside the United States who may not be familiar with the term, "K-12" refers to Kindergarten through 12th grade; pretty much the sum total of one's pre-college/university education.)

• Yes, we cannot end racism until we acknowledge that our institutions, laws, and history are inherently racist
• No, kids should be raised to be racially color blind instead of being taught they are inherently racist or disadvantaged based on the color of their skin

These are not accurate descriptions of Critical Race Theory.

A big part of the problem, as I see it, is that the idea of "disparate impact," the concept that a policy or process that is neutral on its face can have differing impacts on different groups because it doesn't take past differences into account, has gone by the wayside. Term "racist" (or "sexist" or "homophobic" or what have you) has expanded into the space that disparate impact used to occupy.

Another large chunk of the problem is that "racism" and "racists" tend to conjure up images of Confederates and Nazis, and no matter how much someone might say that racism is no longer simply the province of racial animus or bad intent on the part of individuals, that old definition (which, I would point out, was the one that I grew up understanding) dies hard.

And so "Critical Race Theory" goes from:

an academic concept that [...] race is a social construct, and that racism is not merely the product of individual bias or prejudice, but also something embedded in legal systems and policies.

to:

kids being taught they are inherently racist based on the color of their skin

And the I Side With quiz goes along with this, offering no answer that allows the reader to actively reject the skewed framing that Conservative activists have placed around the topic.

And as much as I find these sorts of political exercises interesting, I also find, more and more often, that what I'm mainly learning about are the biases of the people who write them, or the biases they expect the people who engage with them to have. Which is, in the end, understandable. After all, these are people who rely on eyeballs, and bland neutrality seldom brings in the views.