Comments by "Kerry Jacoby" (@kerryjacoby9438) on "Ryan Chapman"
channel.
-
28
-
18
-
17
-
16
-
10
-
@andrewokr16 No, that's not how academia works. "Critical Race Theory" is a handle to make it easy for academics to identify the question they are dealing with. The "book length treatment" is a compendium of multiple ways of asking the question. It's like an anthology dealing with the same theme. All the pieces are about one theme, but they do not represent a whole answer.
Let me put it this way: a yearly science fiction anthology is a set of short stories written in the same year. Even if every story were to ask the same question, you would never claim that all of them taken together form a definitive framework for thinking about science fiction--or even a definitive framework for thinking about all science fiction on a specific topic.
CRT is a catch-all term to help academics in jurisprudential studies get a sense of what the roundtable will be dealing with, or what issues the call for papers is looking for (or, frankly, what buzzwords to put in your proposal to secure a presentation spot at the annual meeting.) It's not a systematic method of analysis, like Marxist theory, or a specific supposedly predictive guide, like a Laffer Curve. It's just a phrase used by legal academics to discuss a question, which is why people outside that discussion have no way of understanding it.
9
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
4
-
@mathiasrennochaves3533 No, because CRT is not an "introductory" subject. To understand what it interrogates you first have to understand the history of the Civil Rights Movement and how it answers hundreds of years of deliberate structural and systemic discrimination by local, state, and federal governments and agencies. Then you have to understand legal theory and Constitutional jurisprudence, as well as banking regulation, tax and housing policy, educational policy, and partisan policies on race from the 30s to the 70s in particular. And then you have to have expert knowledge of specific continuing racial inequities in modern outcomes and be able to apply observations stemming from all that previous work to that new question to ask whether the failure to solve that problem is attributable to how Civil Rights Era legislation was written and/or interpreted, how the post-Civil Rights Era political system abandoned its goals similar to the way the Reconstruction Era was destroyed by political corruption, or something else. Once you can read that paper, you can maybe pass a CRT class. If you can write that paper, you can teach one. But you can't, in any case, make any sensible explanation of it in a K-12 classroom, a business seminar, or an undergraduate college class. Or--and this is the key point--in a Youtube video perpetrated by someone who admittedly does not know the subject.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@conorpodonoghue I have a BA, 2 MAs, a Ph.D., and a published book. My point is not that you should take me at my word, but that if you take the presenter of this video at his word, you accept that he doesn't have an academic background in this; he decided to do some "research" and make a presentation. I say I do know what it is. I have known about it since long before Christopher Rufo made it a negative watchword for the conservative media. I know it is more complex than the video dude (who admits it is new to him) is leading you to believe and that his depiction is slanted and inaccurate. You don't have to believe me--but having been confronted by the possibility that he is misguided, you should take his own word for his ignorance and look much deeper, if you really want to understand it. I'm not going to make an argument because I'm not a Youtuber, and nobody is paying me to use my time (and it would take a LOT of time) to explain something most graduate students and law students don't even understand. It's esoteric. It's boutique. It's worth multiple books, hundreds of papers, thousands of academic seminars and conversations, all of which challenge and contradict and intertwine with each other. It's not fully-formed. It's not easily-digestible. It's not reducible to a listicle, or even a Youtube video. It is the varied and multiple answers to the question: "why is there still racism in societal outcomes after multiple laws and a social movement acted to address structural discrimination?" That's neither an easy question nor one that has been answered yet.
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1