Should CRT be taught in K-12?

Just to clear up where Wordforge stands with CRT being taught in K-12.

Teh baba!!

This. Poll is invalid.

What are you defining as CRT?

If it's the overall tertiary level curriculum, then no. If it's individual bits of material then maybe.

I think an equally relevant question is "is CRT being taught in K-12 schools?"

And if so, why aren't we more concerned with training first graders to be lawyers?

In all honesty I would hire a first grader as my lawyer over Rudy, Lin, and Sydney.

Given what Christopher Rufo has done to overload the term, this is a bad question.

Should the things I described be taught in K-12, regardless of what it is called?

The former.

Extra clarification needed on what is meant by "CRT being taught".

Law school subjects can be taught in K-12. Like anything else, it just needs to be taught in terms a child in k-12 can understand. I was taught in 6th grade about redlining. It wasn't until high school I learned about scientific experiments on black people as late as the 1950s. But, yes, I do believe children should be taught that some people are fucking assholes and do judge people by the color of their skin. That some people do not believe it is happening is exactly the reason it should be taught.

This would be easier to answer if the Hysterical Shrieking Righty Brigade could make up their minds about what they think CRT actually means.

If we go by its actual definition -- an analytical framework examining the role of U.S. law in perpetuating racial injustice, including the study of the intersections between race, class, gender and disability to figure out whether supposedly neutral laws are actually neutral or not -- then I would say that although many high school students are certainly capable of grasping it, it is probably far too specialized for most high school curricula, which generally provide broad overviews of entire subject areas. I would compare it to teaching vector calculus or spending an entire semester on Oliver Cromwell: it's not inappropriate, but it is best suited for the college or postgraduate level where students have a deep interest in whatever topic they're studying.

If we go by Federal Farmer's definition, whereby learning about desegregation is CRT, then yes.

Let’s ignore this once again.

Let's ignore the actual definition of the term in favor of "CRT is anything that hurts my feelings."

Why do you think that definition trumps the definition that is defined on the Harvard Law School website? and can you verify that what this person is saying is being taught to students as a matter of curriculum? If so, can you provide evidence of such?

I'm talking about actual CRT. As in the post graduate college curriculum.

Intentionally false, dishonest portrayal.

In that case, there would be no reason for law school as that would be a prerequisite to CRT. I mean, you have to know the law before you can theorize whether or not it is applied equitably among race. But, if you do that, you'd also need to look at Critical gender theory and Critical Socio-economic Theory. I mean ... there are so many ways law can and is unevenly applied - even among white males, let alone any other fringe group.

Then no. Not when k12 attendance is compulsory and the students are expected to sit obediently and accept things without argument.

LOL. You obviously haven't spoken to any of my youngest's teachers. He does not accept anything the teachers are telling him. Which makes for difficult parent-teacher conferences.

I'd like to see a lot more emphasis on critical thinking skills, myself.

CRT actually is critical thinking skills.

A subset, yes.

Quite. The main argument against teaching the bad stuff about American history seems to be that kids will grow up to hate themselves and America. But no-one with a modicum of critical thinking ability would do so.

But they might not believe in the Bible if you develop those skills, so we can't have that, ohnonono.

Hence, we have to put up with this bullshit "I don't want you teaching my kids X, Y or Z" nonsense instead of actually educating them.

The very fact that "intelligent design" is taught alongside evolution says that ship sailed a long fucking time ago.

Remember when Lanz suggested that the Congressman making a biblical argument against abortion is a valid argument? Tells me Lanz is incapable of even knowing what critical thinking is, let alone having the ability to comment on it.

just, not about race?

that, and it strikes me that given how many of us around here who a decade ago were singing the anthem of Anthem have reversed course, that perhaps the need for critical thought begins closer than you think?

I like how video evidence that CRT is being taught in schools is completely dismissed. You guys are so full of shit. Fuck off with this bullshit. There’s obviously no amount of evidence that you disingenuous pieces of shit will accept. I’m done with this topic, don’t tag me, don’t ask me repetitive questions, I’m not responding, go fuck yourselves.

I recall many intelligent design supporters arguing that schools should “teach the controversy” and let the chips fall where they may. It’s not surprising many of those people now want any mention of CRT or even DEI completely banned in K-12.