“Lived Experience”

I need to save this for the next “discussion” about “white privilege”.

This is one of those phrases out of the critical racism theory cult.  It means that my personal experience (which is subjective, perhaps improved by trauma or intentional exaggeration to meet the needs of the moment) take precedence over any objective measurements (what is the race distribution of people killed by police officers?)  My “lived experience” trumps data, logic, everything.

My “lived experience” is that growing up poor and white was hard.  I went to school with black kids from middle class homes that I could only envy.  I experienced a robbery that in my perception (all that matters, right?) was driven by race, and relied on race (robber pointing to three much older and larger blacks and identifying them as “my brothers” to insure compliance) to make it happen.  In the 1970s, I saw a lot of racism in hiring.  (I was an employment agent.)  My lived experience has been that hard work and character  are rewarded with family stability and wealth.

That’s my “lived experience”: if you disagree, you are a racist.

Source: “Lived Experience”

Two CRT links

It’s been very hard to pin down just what Critical Race Theory actually is. A lot of the proposed definitions and descriptions seem to be formulated by people with axes to grind, and the rest seem flexible enough that they can be stretched to include or exclude anything desired. Trying to decide whether CRT is being taught (or used) in a school is like trying to nail Kool-Aid to a wall.

These may be useful toward a serious understanding.

First, William Galston writes,

Critical race theory is an explicitly left-wing movement inspired by the thinking of an Italian neo-Marxist, Antonio Gramsci. Against classic Marxism, for which material conditions are primary, Gramsci (1891-1937) focused on “hegemony”—the system of beliefs that “reinforces existing social arrangements and convinces the dominated classes that the existing order is inevitable,” as Ms. Crenshaw puts it.

Noteworthy because Galston is center-left. He is burning some bridges here.

Helen Pluckrose writes,

Rather than quibbling over whether what critics are criticising is really the theories that emerged in legal studies from the 1970s, let’s address the reality of what critical theories of race look like right now and how they are impacting real people of all races.

In much of the essay, Pluckrose really gets into the theoretical weeds, even though she points out that a different CRT has been popularized than what was created in academia. This reminds me of Keynesian economics in grad school, where there were all sorts of esoteric discussions of what Keynes really meant and what Keynesian economics ought to be. Meanwhile, what took hold in the press and in public policy is what I call “folk” Keynesianism, which is nothing more than “spending creates jobs, and jobs create spending.” The academic arguments matter only to the academics.

Similarly, I expect that academic discussions of critical race theory no longer affect “folk” critical race theory, or FCRT, if you will. FCRT is what K-12 teachers and journalists carry with them. I think it includes a belief in the moral inferiority of white males. It includes a belief that “privilege” is a very important concept. I think it includes some Puritan sensibilities, particularly an unforgiving stance regarding heretics. But these are tentative thoughts about FCRT. I do not feel confident that I have it pinned down yet.

Source: Two CRT links

“The likelihood that you’re going to have a book in kindergarten or third grade called ‘Critical Race Theory’ is extremely remote. That is not what happens.”

My appearance on Point of View with Chris Berg: “What happens is they take the concepts of Critical Race Theory, and they maybe call it something else …. But the concepts are the same, which is that the country, the nation is systemically racist.

Source: “The likelihood that you’re going to have a book in kindergarten or third grade called ‘Critical Race Theory’ is extremely remote. That is not what happens.”

Mandatory CRT-Based Program Coming to a School…

GET YOUR KIDS OUT OF PUBLIC INDOCTRINATION CENTERS: Mandatory CRT-Based Program Coming to a School Near You. Olly olly oxen free ! Also: Commies, leave the kids alone!


As I started to evangelize on this message, I realized that I would actually have to read the damn books if I wanted to have any credibility.  I couldn’t just read the snippets and sound-bites.  Just in the forward section of Critical Race Theory, an Introduction, was the most mind-blowing understanding of how racist this construct was:

“None of my professors talked about race or ethnicity; it was apparently irrelevant to the law. None of my professors in the first year talked about feminism or the concerns of women, either. These concerns were also, apparently, irrelevant. Nowhere, in fact, did the cases and materials we read address concerns of group inequality, sexual difference, or cultural identity. There was only one Law, a law that in its universal majesty applied to everyone without regard to race, color, gender, or creed.”

All I could think was “isn’t that what the Law SHOULD do???”

But no, CRT proponents seriously believe we need to parcel everyone out into little sub groups and attach a oppressor/victim status to each of them.  Which child is going to be better off for this kind of thinking?  It’s child abuse on either side!  The purpose of CRT learning is to inflict equity.  It is NOT about equality of opportunity.

Source: GET YOUR KIDS OUT OF PUBLIC INDOCTRINATION CENTERS: Mandatory CRT-Based Program Coming to a School…

NEWS YOU CAN USE: Manhattan Institute Offers Toolkit for Parents to Fight Back Against Woke Schools….

NEWS YOU CAN USE: Manhattan Institute Offers Toolkit for Parents to Fight Back Against Woke Schools.

Something peculiar is spreading throughout America’s schools. A public school system just outside the nation’s capital spent $20,000 to be lectured about making their schools less racist.[1]At a tony New York City prep school, a teacher was publicly denounced by the administration for questioning the idea that students should identify themselves in terms of their racial identity.[2] Educators in California are locked in pitched combat over a statewide model curriculum overflowing with terms like “hxrstories” and “cisheteropatriarchy.”[3]

Source: NEWS YOU CAN USE: Manhattan Institute Offers Toolkit for Parents to Fight Back Against Woke Schools….

Source: Woke Schooling: A Toolkit for Concerned Parents

The truth about CRT

Again, we need to distinguish between teaching about CRT and teaching in CRT

 Christopher Rufo:

Moderator Chris Wallace asked President Trump during Tuesday’s debate why he “directed federal agencies to end racial sensitivity training that addresses white privilege or critical race theory.” Mr. Trump answered: “I ended it because it’s racist.” Participants “were asked to do things that were absolutely insane,” he explained. “They were teaching people to hate our country.”

“Nobody’s doing that,” Joe Biden replied. He’s wrong.

My reporting on critical race theory in the federal government was the impetus for the president’s executive order, so I can say with confidence that these training sessions had nothing to do with developing “racial sensitivity.” As I documented in detailed reports for City Journal and the New York Post, critical race theory training sessions in public agencies have pushed a deeply ideological agenda that includes reducing people to a racial essence, segregating them, and judging them by their group identity rather than their individual merit.

The examples are instructive. At a series of events at the Treasury Department and federal financial agencies, diversity trainer Howard Ross taught employees that America was “built on the backs of people who were enslaved” and that all white Americans are complicit in the system of white supremacy “by automatic response to the ways [they’re] taught.” In accompanying documents, Ross argues that white employees can be reduced to the quality of “whiteness,” which is a form of inborn oppression, and must “struggle to own their racism.” He instructs “white managers” to conduct “listening sessions” in which black employees can explain “what it means to be Black” and be “seen in their pain,” with white employees instructed to “sit in their discomfort” and not “fill the silence” with their “own thoughts and feelings.” Black employees, Mr. Ross says, are not “obligated to like you, thank you, feel sorry for you, or forgive you.” For trainings like this, Mr. Ross and his firm have been paid $5 million over 15 years, according to federal disclosures.

At the Sandia National Laboratories, which develops technology for America’s nuclear arsenal, executives held a racially segregated training session for white male employees. The three-day event, which was led by a company called White Men As Full Diversity Partners, set the goal of examining “white male culture” and making the employees take responsibility for their “while privilege,” “male privilege” and “heterosexual privilege.” In one of the opening exercises, the instructors wrote on a whiteboard that “white male culture” can be associated with “white supremacists,” “KKK,” “Aryan Nation,” “MAGA hat” and “mass killings.” On the final day, the trainers asked the employees to write letters to women and people of color, with one participant apologizing for his privilege and another pledging to “be a better ally.”

At the Department of Homeland Security, diversity trainers held a session on “microaggressions,” based on the work of psychologist Derald Sue. In his academic work, Dr. Sue argues that white Americans have been “fed a racial curriculum based on falsehoods, unwarranted fears, and the belief in their own superiority,” and thus have been “socialized into oppressor roles.” Trainers taught Homeland Security employees that the “myth of meritocracy” and “color blindness” are foundations of racist “microaggressions” and “microinequities.” The trainers insisted that phrases such as “America is the land of opportunity,” “Everybody can succeed in this society, if they work hard enough,” and “I believe the most qualified person should get the job” are racist statements that harm people of color. They are merely code for “People of color are lazy and/or incompetent and need to work harder.” If a white employee disagrees, his or her point of view is dismissed as a “denial of individual racism” which the trainers deem another type of microaggression.

Source: The truth about CRT

ANDREW SULLIVAN: Removing The Bedrock Of Liberalism: What the “Critical Race Theory” debate is really about

As the origins of our current moral panic about “white supremacy” become more widely debated, we have an obvious problem: how to define the term “Critical Race Theory.” This was never going to be easy, since so much of the academic discourse behind the term is deliberately impenetrable, as it tries to disrupt and dismantle the Western concept of discourse itself. The sheer volume of jargon words, and their mutual relationships, along with the usual internal bitter controversies, all serve to sow confusion. . . .

In his forthcoming book, “The Constitution of Knowledge,” Jonathan Rauch lays out some core principles that liberal societies rely upon. These are not optional if liberal society is to survive. And they are not easy, which is why we have created many institutions and practices to keep them alive. Rauch lists some of them: fallibilism, the belief that anyone, especially you, can always be wrong; objectivity, a rejection of any theory that cannot be proven or disproven by reality; accountability, the openness to conceding and correcting error; and pluralism, the maintenance of intellectual diversity so we maximize our chances of finding the truth.

The only human civilization that has ever depended on these principles is the modern West since the Enlightenment. That’s a few hundred years as opposed to 200,000 or so of Homo sapiens’ history, when tribalism, creedalism, warfare, theocracy or totalitarianism reigned. . . .

My central problem with critical theory is that it takes precise aim at these very core principles and rejects them. By rejecting them, in the otherwise noble cause of helping the marginalized, it is a very seductive and potent threat to liberal civilization.

It’s not in a noble cause. It just pretends to be. It is in fact about gaining and retaining power through the deliberate employment of bigotry.

Source: ANDREW SULLIVAN: Removing The Bedrock Of Liberalism