The problem with these debates is they are so rooted in emotion and misinformation they come off as racist too. 

Here in Texas, the state passed a bill that will probably head to the governor that not only removes CRT from the curriculum but then specifies which documents can be thought, as if to say anything outside the approved list is bad. 

So while CRT forces schools to one set of academic limitations, the response takes it to the complete opposite end instead of trying to bridge the gap.

I don't know of many liberals (i.e. in the classical sense) who advocate for equality of outcome as if somehow that will solve the problem of racism in various systems. That does not mean, though, the teaching of racism and the effect it has had on society should be ignored.

Sure, my use of the term "legal system" was imprecise. What I meant was "the codification of law," i.e. "the wording of the laws”/“the letter of the law.”

(Crits do believe that, for example, judges are unconsciously--sometimes consciously--harsher on POC defendants because of their race. And ofc judges are a part of the legal system, so you're right.)

Also...I question that source. CRT is a direct outgrowth of critical legal studies...it can be labelled "critical theory," but "an outgrowth of the European Marxist school of critical thinking (I.e. the Frankfurt School??)" haha no

>The objective of actual CRT is to eliminate racial discrimination. They just recognize that racial discrimination can exist despite a racially neutral legal system

This does not sound like CRT that came from, as described, from [European Marxist school of critical thinking ](https://criticalrace.org/what-is-critical-race-theory/). According to the source, they believe the legal system is not racially neutral and hence, racist due to racism when it was created.

I'm totally ok with mainstream CRT. Charlatans on Twitter who think they know what they're talking about are the real problem

The objective of **actual** CRT is to eliminate racial discrimination. They just recognize that racial discrimination can exist despite a racially neutral legal system

But idiots on Twitter are somehow using CRT-sounding terms to downplay discrimination (e.g. "saying all white people are evil isn't racism it's just discrimination??")

They also use it to make claims like "any racial stratification is evidence of present day racial discrimination."

That's not CRT--that's Ibram X. Kendi's misguided worldview combined with charlatan-Twitter lunacy

Good. 

CRT is divisive garbage. It's become an industry. 

People who teach it have no genuine motivation to genuinely unite people. 

When people get together, inter-racial children are the result. You can't sell CRT to a population that is substantially inter-racial...*so they divide the races and keep them separate.*

>  it wants to lay blame on those divisions by saying the system itself, from the institution of liberalism, is the cause.

The concept of systemic racism isn't in itself a problem [from a classical liberal point of view](https://freopp.org/what-systemic-racism-is-and-isnt-1213c1c972ff). That doesn't mean one has to agree with critical race theory what the exact problem and solution is. What also seems to be happening is that people tend to throw everything that CRT says out with the proverbial bathwater. Something that is specifically relevant for liberals and that CRT brings up is that liberal documents that was supposed to make people free - the American constitution - still didn't stop institutionalized racism in the form of slavery. I can see why conservatives would want to ignore that issue, but classical liberals shouldn't.

CRT does more than highlight the divisions; it wants to lay blame on those divisions by saying the system itself, from the institution of liberalism, is the cause.

I agree with you that those differences should be taught so as to not repeat the mistakes of the past but not at the expense of the future to enforce equality of outcome.

But what are the options then? If you think talking about racism is constantly talking about divisions, then there's not much left than to ignore it. The question wasn't about whether or not it should be solved, but how. But it still implies actually bringing up the divisions, a lot.

Is this a real question? Do you think those are the only options?

How about trying to resolve divisions? That’s clearly not an aim of CRT.

> the idea that we can improve race relations by constantly highlighting our divisions

As opposed to improving race relations by ignoring the divisions? I mean, blaming CRT for constantly highlighting racism is like telling a lawyer that they constantly talk about the law.

CRT: the idea that we can improve race relations by constantly highlighting our divisions, blaming current generations for sins of the past, and telling a large segment of society that they’re racist at birth and always will be.

Unfortunately mine did not, thank God I’m graduating

Wow.  Second day in a row this asshole karma whore included this sub in his/her fucking spam.

Anyone notice, all this asshole does is spam links in multiples subs with no discussion?  This account hasn't even written a single fucking comment in four months.

It doesn't mean anything, it's just something conservatives use to shoot down criticism by appealing to feelings instead of arguments. It's just as divisive, you're either with us - the real Americans - or against us.

Eh, I disagree.  Can you elaborate why it’s “guaranteed”?

Classical liberals should take note when politicians describe something as "anti-American", it's a guarentee that they're doing something that they shouldn't be doing. If you want an even more politicized school curriculum, fine, but just realize that whatever you think about CRT that this is part of the exact same problem.

School District Shoots Down Critical Race Theory After Heated Debate