President Signs Executive Order Abolishing Critical Race Theory(whitehouse.gov)
whitehouse.gov
President Signs Executive Order Abolishing Critical Race Theory
https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/executive-order-combating-race-sex-stereotyping/
52 comments
The EO claims that it's a misrepresentation to say, as Stephen A. Douglas did, that 'our government "was made on the white basis" "by white men, for the benefit of white men". Our Founding documents rejected these radicalized views of America, which were soundly defeated on the blood-stained battlefields of the Civil War."
Given the slavery in those founding documents, the Naturalization Act of 1790 (which limited naturalization to free white people of good character), the common law practice of the time of coverture, the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882, and the post-slavery Jim Crow laws - how was Douglas misrepresenting the Republic at that time?
Given the slavery in those founding documents, the Naturalization Act of 1790 (which limited naturalization to free white people of good character), the common law practice of the time of coverture, the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882, and the post-slavery Jim Crow laws - how was Douglas misrepresenting the Republic at that time?
At first I thought this was a news article, but looking into the author's writing this looks more like political ideology and propaganda wrapped in a pretense of pointing out the opposing ideology.
Banning ideas and research as "poison" and "dangerous" and even prohibiting public debate is about the most un-American position I can imagine. Was I the only one taught in public school that McCarthyism was bad and stain on the country? McCarthyism is still defined as the practice of making accusations of subversion or treason without proper regard for evidence.
Banning ideas and research as "poison" and "dangerous" and even prohibiting public debate is about the most un-American position I can imagine. Was I the only one taught in public school that McCarthyism was bad and stain on the country? McCarthyism is still defined as the practice of making accusations of subversion or treason without proper regard for evidence.
@dang could we please change the link to the actual EO: https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/executive-or... ?
... it seems the author of this post is a mouth-piece for some strange theories and it makes for a poor basis of discussion on what is otherwise an important topic. I guess a lot of people were mistaken by retweeting him. My apologies for not digging for the original source.
... it seems the author of this post is a mouth-piece for some strange theories and it makes for a poor basis of discussion on what is otherwise an important topic. I guess a lot of people were mistaken by retweeting him. My apologies for not digging for the original source.
Ok, changed from https://christopherrufo.com/president-signs-executive-order-....
"Christopher F. Rufo is the director of the Discovery Institute’s Center on Wealth & Poverty".
The Discovery Institute advocates the pseudoscientific concept of intelligent design. Which is about as well supported, scientifically speaking, as phrenology.
The Discovery Institute advocates the pseudoscientific concept of intelligent design. Which is about as well supported, scientifically speaking, as phrenology.
Which is kind of funny, because phrenology is literally:
> or (9) meritocracy or traits such as a hard work ethic are racist or sexist, or were created by a particular race to oppress another race.
> or (9) meritocracy or traits such as a hard work ethic are racist or sexist, or were created by a particular race to oppress another race.
It's just a moratorium on taxpayer funding, not a ban. As a taxpayer, I'm ok with the government not funding racist ideology.
Have you read the executive order or the article?
From the article: "agencies are directed to initiate adverse action proceedings against managers who continue to hold CRT trainings"
This does not sound like a dispassionate funding policy change, more like an ideological purge of a set of ideas on which there is an ongoing debate across the country.
From the article: "agencies are directed to initiate adverse action proceedings against managers who continue to hold CRT trainings"
This does not sound like a dispassionate funding policy change, more like an ideological purge of a set of ideas on which there is an ongoing debate across the country.
The ideas in question are racist and have no place in government. CRT isn't simply about learning of the discrimination and suffering of certain groups, it's also about retribution and placing blame on people who literally had no part in the oppression in question, due to their race.
Also, yes I read the EO. Did you?
Also, yes I read the EO. Did you?
"ideas in question are racist" is presented without evidence or a convincing explanation.
I agree that racism has no place in government, so this quote, among many, from the president is very troubling:
"You have good genes, you know that, right? You have good genes. A lot of it is about the genes, isn't it, don't you believe? The racehorse theory. You think we're so different? You have good genes in Minnesota."
Here is the video: https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1307124621389463553?s=20
I agree that racism has no place in government, so this quote, among many, from the president is very troubling:
"You have good genes, you know that, right? You have good genes. A lot of it is about the genes, isn't it, don't you believe? The racehorse theory. You think we're so different? You have good genes in Minnesota."
Here is the video: https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1307124621389463553?s=20
Any ideology that places blame and responsibility on an entire group based on their race is racist. I believe in individual responsibly, not group responsibility and original sin - which according to CRT, is a form of white supremacy.
I will not further address the comments by the president because they are hamfisted, poorly articulated, and off topic. You are obviously trying to shift this debate to be about the current administration rather than CRT.
I will not further address the comments by the president because they are hamfisted, poorly articulated, and off topic. You are obviously trying to shift this debate to be about the current administration rather than CRT.
Race in this context refers to the action of racing, not the races of humans, or even horses.
The only way this argument would make sense as a critique of Trump's supposed racism would be if you believed some races do _not_ have good genes. I doubt you believe this. I certainly don't.
The only way this argument would make sense as a critique of Trump's supposed racism would be if you believed some races do _not_ have good genes. I doubt you believe this. I certainly don't.
So in the broadest sense, all ethnicities have good genes, and all people probably have rich and vibrant cultures that are a credit to humanity.
However, if someone in the US started an all white club to blandly talk about how great Caucasian genetics and culture is, then I would be very suspicious of them. They wouldn't even need white robes and pointy traditionalist wizard hats (symbolizing their respect for pre-chrisitian religions I am sure)...
However, if someone in the US started an all white club to blandly talk about how great Caucasian genetics and culture is, then I would be very suspicious of them. They wouldn't even need white robes and pointy traditionalist wizard hats (symbolizing their respect for pre-chrisitian religions I am sure)...
Does Rep. Ilhan Omar of Minnesota have good genes?
Do you think Trump thinks she does?
Who doesn't have good genes?
Given the association between the eugenics movement and "good genes", Trump has a large negative association to overcome if he's trying to say something so anodyne.
Do you think Trump thinks she does?
Who doesn't have good genes?
Given the association between the eugenics movement and "good genes", Trump has a large negative association to overcome if he's trying to say something so anodyne.
That's from the article. The EO does not include that quote.
The author of that article is mischaracterizing CRT for ideological reasons.
The author of that article is mischaracterizing CRT for ideological reasons.
That is a good point, I updated my comment attribute the quote more accurately.
> Have you read the executive order or the article?
Please don't comment on whether someone read an article. "Did you even read the article? It mentions that" can be shortened to "The article mentions that."
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Please don't comment on whether someone read an article. "Did you even read the article? It mentions that" can be shortened to "The article mentions that."
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
The executive order can also be found here: https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/executive-or...
The core of the EO seems to be the following passage. For those who are opposed to this, could you please explain why?
all Government contracting agencies shall include in every Government contract hereafter entered into the following provisions:
“During the performance of this contract, the contractor agrees as follows:
1. The contractor shall not use any workplace training that inculcates in its employees any form of race or sex stereotyping or any form of race or sex scapegoating, including the concepts that (a) one race or sex is inherently superior to another race or sex; (b) an individual, by virtue of his or her race or sex, is inherently racist, sexist, or oppressive, whether consciously or unconsciously; (c) an individual should be discriminated against or receive adverse treatment solely or partly because of his or her race or sex; (d) members of one race or sex cannot and should not attempt to treat others without respect to race or sex; (e) an individual’s moral character is necessarily determined by his or her race or sex; (f) an individual, by virtue of his or her race or sex, bears responsibility for actions committed in the past by other members of the same race or sex; (g) any individual should feel discomfort, guilt, anguish, or any other form of psychological distress on account of his or her race or sex; or (h) meritocracy or traits such as a hard work ethic are racist or sexist, or were created by a particular race to oppress another race. The term “race or sex stereotyping” means ascribing character traits, values, moral and ethical codes, privileges, status, or beliefs to a race or sex, or to an individual because of his or her race or sex, and the term “race or sex scapegoating” means assigning fault, blame, or bias to a race or sex, or to members of a race or sex because of their race or sex.
The core of the EO seems to be the following passage. For those who are opposed to this, could you please explain why?
all Government contracting agencies shall include in every Government contract hereafter entered into the following provisions:
“During the performance of this contract, the contractor agrees as follows:
1. The contractor shall not use any workplace training that inculcates in its employees any form of race or sex stereotyping or any form of race or sex scapegoating, including the concepts that (a) one race or sex is inherently superior to another race or sex; (b) an individual, by virtue of his or her race or sex, is inherently racist, sexist, or oppressive, whether consciously or unconsciously; (c) an individual should be discriminated against or receive adverse treatment solely or partly because of his or her race or sex; (d) members of one race or sex cannot and should not attempt to treat others without respect to race or sex; (e) an individual’s moral character is necessarily determined by his or her race or sex; (f) an individual, by virtue of his or her race or sex, bears responsibility for actions committed in the past by other members of the same race or sex; (g) any individual should feel discomfort, guilt, anguish, or any other form of psychological distress on account of his or her race or sex; or (h) meritocracy or traits such as a hard work ethic are racist or sexist, or were created by a particular race to oppress another race. The term “race or sex stereotyping” means ascribing character traits, values, moral and ethical codes, privileges, status, or beliefs to a race or sex, or to an individual because of his or her race or sex, and the term “race or sex scapegoating” means assigning fault, blame, or bias to a race or sex, or to members of a race or sex because of their race or sex.
Looks like common sense. No one should be stereotyped, scapegoated or discriminated against because of their race or sex. And it's just as wrong when taxpayer money is used to formally promote these ideas in the workplace.
I'm opposed to it because in reality the interpretation of whether something fits that definition is going to fraught with issues and likely to result in the outlawing of anything that doesn't fit a right wing ideology. I'm particularly concerned because it's couched in language that deliberately denies the factual history of discrimination in America.
It's also particularly concerned because the phrase
>the United States is fundamentally racist or sexist
Is at best, a controversial political opinion and not a statement of fact. For example, crafting an executive order to ban people from discussing the systematic oppression of black people seems to me like the act of a fundamentally racist country, I guess I better not bid for any government contracts.
It's also particularly concerned because the phrase
>the United States is fundamentally racist or sexist
Is at best, a controversial political opinion and not a statement of fact. For example, crafting an executive order to ban people from discussing the systematic oppression of black people seems to me like the act of a fundamentally racist country, I guess I better not bid for any government contracts.
I don't think I like it, but I also don't think banning it is the right choice. If that is necessary to dodge some mandatory diversity/inclusion trainings, I would support the decision.
The way so many things are being pushed through by 'executive order' seems quite dangerous to me.
On the other hand, the whole 'critical theory' and postmodern movement seems to me to be anti-rational, regressive and even more dangerous to a free society, eg: https://areomagazine.com/2017/03/27/how-french-intellectuals...
On the other hand, the whole 'critical theory' and postmodern movement seems to me to be anti-rational, regressive and even more dangerous to a free society, eg: https://areomagazine.com/2017/03/27/how-french-intellectuals...
[deleted]
[deleted]
As everyone knows, the best way to argue against an idea is to outlaw it
Not having it funded by the tax payer is not the same as outlawing it.
This all comes down to whether critical race theory is truly an unacceptable set of ideas, like e.g frenology, or not, that should be legitimately banned.
Should be easy to make an honest defense of that point if this is indeed the case?
This all comes down to whether critical race theory is truly an unacceptable set of ideas, like e.g frenology, or not, that should be legitimately banned.
Should be easy to make an honest defense of that point if this is indeed the case?
What an odd comparison.
Is the teaching of phrenology banned? By executive order or Congressional law?
Not that I'm aware of, but hey, I can be wrong.
By comparison, critical race theory is currently taught at some schools. Eg, https://law.ucla.edu/academics/centers/critical-race-studies , "Led by renowned scholars who have influenced law and policy for decades, UCLA Law’s Critical Race Studies Program is the premier setting for studying the intersection of race and the law."
Wikipedia at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_race_theory points out:
> By 2002, over 20 American law schools, and at least 3 law schools in other countries, offered critical race theory courses or classes which covered the issue centrally.[7] In addition to law, critical race theory is taught and innovated in the fields of education, political science, women's studies, ethnic studies, communication, sociology, and American studies.[8] Important scholars to the theory include Derrick Bell, Patricia Williams, Richard Delgado, Kimberlé Williams Crenshaw, Camara Phyllis Jones, and Mari Matsuda.
Personally, I think evolutionary psychology is a load of crap about equal to phrenology - why not defund those departments too?
Is the teaching of phrenology banned? By executive order or Congressional law?
Not that I'm aware of, but hey, I can be wrong.
By comparison, critical race theory is currently taught at some schools. Eg, https://law.ucla.edu/academics/centers/critical-race-studies , "Led by renowned scholars who have influenced law and policy for decades, UCLA Law’s Critical Race Studies Program is the premier setting for studying the intersection of race and the law."
Wikipedia at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_race_theory points out:
> By 2002, over 20 American law schools, and at least 3 law schools in other countries, offered critical race theory courses or classes which covered the issue centrally.[7] In addition to law, critical race theory is taught and innovated in the fields of education, political science, women's studies, ethnic studies, communication, sociology, and American studies.[8] Important scholars to the theory include Derrick Bell, Patricia Williams, Richard Delgado, Kimberlé Williams Crenshaw, Camara Phyllis Jones, and Mari Matsuda.
Personally, I think evolutionary psychology is a load of crap about equal to phrenology - why not defund those departments too?
The teaching of CRT isn't banned. You can teach CRT all you like, just don't expect taxpayer funds or government contracts.
The government shouldn't be funding racist ideologies or vendors who teach such ideology. CRT, in teaching what amounts to original sin, is at best reinforcing stereotypes and at worst is boldly racist.
I would not support an actual ban because it violates the first amendment. That doesn't mean we (taxpayers) should have to contribute to a divisive ideology.
I would not support an actual ban because it violates the first amendment. That doesn't mean we (taxpayers) should have to contribute to a divisive ideology.
I just finished reading the EO. (Instead of clicking through the images, read it directly at https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/executive-or... .)
The EO doesn't abolish CRT.
The title of this HN link is click-bait for whackjobs who use outliers as representative of the entire concept.
The EO doesn't abolish CRT.
The title of this HN link is click-bait for whackjobs who use outliers as representative of the entire concept.
I don't understand. Is that good or bad? Is critical race theory the pseudoscience it sounds like it is? Wikipedia page did not help me.
(am from EU)
(am from EU)
Is critical race theory pseudoscience?
This is off topic, but I'll bite anyway. Like all broad ideas, there is no one canonical definition of Critical Race Theory that everyone agrees with.
Some serious takes on Critical Race Theory have ideas that explain why science is not always correct.
Some professors who support CRT explain that Storytelling is superior in certain ways, and in certain situations to scientific gathering information.
In other spots, professors claim that since science, reason and mathematics are white Western ideas, they are part of the oppressive system.
I don't really understand those two ideas very well, so I probably misstated them in some form. But if you dive into the details you'll find those ideas or similar ideas.
If you're coming from a mindset where science is the ultimate source of truth, you will be surprised to find that Critical Race Theory says that there are other routes which are better.
I would not say CRT is pseudoscience. I would place it alongside other philosophical theories which support or deny the ideas which form the basis of science.
This is off topic, but I'll bite anyway. Like all broad ideas, there is no one canonical definition of Critical Race Theory that everyone agrees with.
Some serious takes on Critical Race Theory have ideas that explain why science is not always correct.
Some professors who support CRT explain that Storytelling is superior in certain ways, and in certain situations to scientific gathering information.
In other spots, professors claim that since science, reason and mathematics are white Western ideas, they are part of the oppressive system.
I don't really understand those two ideas very well, so I probably misstated them in some form. But if you dive into the details you'll find those ideas or similar ideas.
If you're coming from a mindset where science is the ultimate source of truth, you will be surprised to find that Critical Race Theory says that there are other routes which are better.
I would not say CRT is pseudoscience. I would place it alongside other philosophical theories which support or deny the ideas which form the basis of science.
Wikipedia didn't help you because it describes actual CRT, which is a somewhat bland academic field that, like seemingly all humanities work, tends to be heavy on jargon and pomp and a little light on genuine insight. But none of its contentions are really that controversial. Broadly it's the recognition that "race is real" and that injustices colored by the history of racial politics persist in modern society.
What actually got banned is "boogeyman CRT", which is a caricature of the field propagated among the partisan press for use as an "enemy".
And of course it's bad. You don't ban ideas with which you disagree, even (especially) if you think they're factually wrong.
What actually got banned is "boogeyman CRT", which is a caricature of the field propagated among the partisan press for use as an "enemy".
And of course it's bad. You don't ban ideas with which you disagree, even (especially) if you think they're factually wrong.
We regularly do ban ideas which we disagree with. For example....
The federal government will not fund research into the idea that women are sub human, and will certainly fire any manager who tries to include female inferiority training as a requirement for their employees.
Banning this sexist idea is a good thing. The idea itself is poison and has no place in common government.
If some people think it is merely controversial, then they should build credibility outside of government then ask for the rules to be relaxed.
The federal government will not fund research into the idea that women are sub human, and will certainly fire any manager who tries to include female inferiority training as a requirement for their employees.
Banning this sexist idea is a good thing. The idea itself is poison and has no place in common government.
If some people think it is merely controversial, then they should build credibility outside of government then ask for the rules to be relaxed.
The field isn't banned. It's just not being funded by taxpayers.
You are being intentionally dramatic and misleading.
You are being intentionally dramatic and misleading.
Read the EO. It goes much farther than banning funding for research, it's a muzzle on all federal decisionmaking and the behavior of all federal contractors.
If you're a federal contractor and you tell your employees "I think racism is real", it seems like you'd fall afoul of this language and lose your contract.
If you're a federal contractor and you tell your employees "I think racism is real", it seems like you'd fall afoul of this language and lose your contract.
I read the EO and the article. Your analysis is flawed and grossly oversimplified.
I suspect you know this and are trying to stir up emotional sentiment because you dislike the current administration.
Can you quote the part of the executive order that you believe would bar a federal contractor from telling its employees “I think racism is real”?
additional context / tl;dr: https://nitter.net/realchrisrufo/status/1308540172519186432#...
“Banning” ideas? The authoritarianism is getting less and less guarded.
It’s hardly authoritarian to disallow certain ideas being funded by the tax payer. We wouldn’t be upset if frenology wasn’t allowed in government agencies.
I think the idea behind the ban is that critical race theory delivers a certain leftist ideology veiled in an intent to address race or gender issues.
Agree with this or not, but this seems where to discussion should take place.
I think the idea behind the ban is that critical race theory delivers a certain leftist ideology veiled in an intent to address race or gender issues.
Agree with this or not, but this seems where to discussion should take place.
This goes much further than banning funding by the tax payer. It disallows companies that want government contracts from having internal training that goes against the ideology the government has dictated even when that training is entirely unrelated to the contracts the company is bidding for.
You just defined "funding by the taxpayer". Since money is fungible, any monies paid toward vendors teaching CRT is defacto taxpayer funding.
> I think the idea behind the ban is that critical race theory delivers a certain leftist ideology
You believe the ban is ideological, and... you aren't horrified? What happens when Harris bans discussion of libertarian ideas in the treasury department?
You believe the ban is ideological, and... you aren't horrified? What happens when Harris bans discussion of libertarian ideas in the treasury department?
What do you mean by "discussion"? If "using taxpayer money to host mandatory courses", I think every ideology should be banned from this in government institutions.
However, to ban these in the private companies that want to do business with government agencies is of course too much in my opinion.
However, to ban these in the private companies that want to do business with government agencies is of course too much in my opinion.
She puts way too many people into the industrial prison complex to argue against libertarian ideas.
[deleted]
Libertarian ideas aren't racist. This is a false equivalence.
Federal employees in the treasury, while being paid, should discuss .. the treasury. Not libertarian ideas, not CRT, or any other controversial theories. They are free to do that on their own time however.
What do you imagine a treasury employee does all day, sits in a locked room and counts coins without any connection to the outside world? These are the people that are directing monetary policies that affect people's lives, well being and equity. Without an opinion on CRT itself, which I don't know much about, I think learning from any side about how those lives are affected, and the history of the country, is exactly what well informed government official should be doing.
It like telling a programmer they should only ever have a terminal and a code editor open, and ban using a browser during office hours.
It like telling a programmer they should only ever have a terminal and a code editor open, and ban using a browser during office hours.
Laudable. Robin DiAngelo, et al. are grifters.
Essentially profiting off of human suffering and guilt, and laughing their way to the bank.
Taxpayer money shouldn't be funneled to these shysters.
Essentially profiting off of human suffering and guilt, and laughing their way to the bank.
Taxpayer money shouldn't be funneled to these shysters.
[0] https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/17/us/princeton-racism-feder...
[1] https://www.city-journal.org/systemic-racism-princeton