Talk:Critical race theory
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details. | ||||||||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. | ||||||||
| ??? | This article has not yet received an importance rating on the importance scale. | ||||||||
|
|||||||||
On this page, it says that this entry may be unencyclopedic. Though there may be points where it needs to be edited, there does need to be an article here about critical race theory. It is a way of looking at the world and it is important for scholars to understand that other people believe this theory could be true. If anything, someone with more knowledge than me needs to edit it. Please don't delete it.
The "Thoughts" section is word for word the same as the intro to this page http://www.pages.drexel.edu/~jp49/ and because of this doesn't make sense in some places.
This article implies CRT is limited to the USA. This is not the case. Needs a rewrite.
Issues with linking and then linking again and again to a last name or such ... ugh ... wasn't my cleanup, i'm working on Bell disambig--Rbeas 03:52, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
I'm new and don't know the etiquette on this. Should the tag still be there? The article seems pretty clean to me. . . but, like I said, I'm new. . . Soulful scholar 18:37, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Shouldn't it be mentioned that CRT is considered pseudoscience by the scientific mainstream? There is also no 'con' section. The fact that one of CRT's main tenets is that race is a social construct says volumes about the validity of the concept.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.146.255.73 (talk • contribs)
- Critical race theory is a humanities area of study and doesn't present itself as a science, so I doubt that the scientific mainstream bothers addressing itself to the topic of whether it is pseudoscience. --Grace 00:13, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
It still needs to meet standards, which it doesn't. 'Humanities' does not mean free reign to make things up. Even the pseudoscience article here on Wikipedia lists CRT as pseudoscientific.
- If Flying Spaghetti Monsterism (which by the way also does not contain a "con" section) manages to avoid classification as unencyclopedic, I fail to see what's wrong with this article. As long as it maintains a neutral point of view, the information is valuable. Just because someone disagrees with the theory or the soundness of it's foundation does not automatically deem it fodder for deletion. It is a published theory in the literature of law and education. Removing this article would not be maintaining Wikipedia's standard of a neutral POV because it would be suppressing the full sum of all available theories on this topic. The correctness of the theory may be up for debate, but not its existence, and as such, it demands inclusion in Wikipedia.Casimps1 02:08, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Just because you disagree with an opinion doesn't mean its pseudoscience. If it is scientific enough for the Harvard Law Review, it's *probably* scientific enough for Wikipedia.
It's no more pseudoscience than feminism... Just a theory, a way of looking at social issues, not a matter of fact or fiction.
I honestly don't know why this article is up for debate. It is an branch of critical theory and that theory is not questioned as being unencyclopedic on it's wikipedia page. Other than some posters not agreeing with the theory, I don't see a problem. There are plenty of scholarly journals and prominent researchers that embrace and/or research critical theory. I don't think it's our job to censor things we don't like. —Preceding unsigned comment added by J.simpson (talk • contribs)
- The "unencyclopedic" tag generally means that someone thought the article as written is unencyclopedic, not that there shouldn't be some article on the subject. I think the current article is moderately good, but it's clearly written by a proponent of the field, while preferred Wikipedia style is for articles to read such that a reader can't tell if they were written by a proponent, detractor, or neutral party. The quotations starting each section are particularly stylistically odd for an encyclopedia article. --Delirium 04:15, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
CRT is a sociological theory, and I agree that it is encyclopedic. The article does seem a bit more cleaned up now, though. Verkhovensky 19:33, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
See also section Can anyone tell me why the "See also" section lists Survival of the fittest? It doesn't make any sense to me. CRT is about how humans sub-divide themselves socially, not about which species persist into future generations. Am I being dense? 70.137.136.121 20:30, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Tautology?
The paragraph explaining Crenshaw's "expansive" and "restrictive" properties of anti-discrimination law is opaque. Some concrete examples would definitely help explain the distinction this paragraph is trying to make. And please consider the concluding sentence: "The implication of Crenshaw's argument is that the failure of the restrictive property to address or correct the racial injustices of the past simply perpetuates the status quo." All it seems to be saying is that the failure to do something that changes the status quo perpetuates the status quo. Such tautologies are not very informative. I hope that someone with knowledge of this subject will fix this paragraph. —Blanchette 18:39, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
The most obvious problem is that this article never actual says *what* is being referred to under the name Critical Race Theory. What is the theory? What does it state and how does this change the idea of a social perspective? For that matter, it needs to explain more about some of the claims it makes. CRT originated in the 1970s by a group of law students and professors, so how does W. E. B. Du Bois filter in?
Of course it doesn't say "what" is being referred to it is post-modernist rubbish. Jmm6f488 03:28, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] R.A.V. and the votes on the Supreme Court
It is misleading to suggest that the Supreme Court in R.A.V. voted unanimously in favor of Scalias opinion. In fact, Scalia was only able to win five votes for his opinion. His reasoning was very sharply attacked in three concurrences by Justices White (the lead concurrence), Blackmun and Stevens. As Justice White makes clear in the opening paragraph of his concurrence, he agreed with Scalia in the result - "but our agreement ends there".
Whereas Scalia's opinion found the St. Paul ordinance at issue - not cross burning as such (another inaccuracy in the article) - to be impermissibly content- and even viewpoint based for outlawing fighting words on the basis of the particular opinion they convey, Justice White found the ordinance to be overbroad as it was not properly limited to the constitutionally proscribable category of fighting words.
Thus, the rationales of Scalia and White are severely at odds and reflect a deep division among the Justices about the validity and meaning of the so called categoric approach. The fact that all Justices agreed that the ordinance under review was in one way or another unconstitutional cannot and must not be taken as evidence of a unaminous per se-rejection by the Supreme Court of arguments in favor of hate speech regulation.
The entry should be corrected accordingly.
131.220.201.107 10:07, 14 November 2007 (UTC)YFU
What is this huge first section about? There is a huge rambling of weird writings in the beginning of this article that seems kinda like spam and is above the introductory notes on CRT. One example is "someday, maybe TO BE CONTINUED, postmodernanarchisthardcoreleftorganizerauthor 128.32.119.122 (talk) 15:43, 7 December 2007 (UTC), CRT adherent
== Dec. 7, 2007 ... Dec. 7, 1941 ("12/7") (remember, remember, "a date which will live in infamy")" That's a little weird. I am going to remove this large rambling first section as it seems to be of very little use because there is already an introduction on what CRT is. Jack Stephens (talk) 23:38, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] How can there be no section containing "Criticisms of Critical Race Theory"
By the way, I appreciate the snarkiness and subtle irony of the the person above who said CRT made as much sense as feminism. EXACTLY! They are both complete sh*t in their *current* forms. They are both tools of oppression masquerading as tools of liberation. They are both founded on many untestable concepts that they like to call theories. 72.222.181.186 (talk) 17:46, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
