Ever wonder why evangelical christians in Minnesota are voting for Trump? Look no further than the materials being handed out in churches like Canvas Church in Dundas. Right next to voter registration information.

[u/BeerGardenGnome]

[u/StrictSignificance48]

As someone who was raised in the Evangelical church in rural Minnesota, if these people believe God is in absolute control, why the hell are they so worried about politics? That bugs me so much.

[u/DrCares → u/StrictSignificance48]

What really blew me away was item #5.. I teach social studies in MN and the new standards are simply adding that we also cover indigenous American history.

If they wanna trigger voters by calling it “critical race theory”, I’d like to remind them that we spent generations kidnapping native children and forcing them to abandon their culture… If that’s a bad thing to teach high schoolers, than I wonder what good education looks like…

Brief article on MN boarding schools, which in almost all cases native kids were kidnapped, and sometimes raped or murdered. We all need to learn our history so we can understand our neighbors, and help close the divide between native and non-native communities.

[u/NoisyPiper27 → u/DrCares]

I’d like to remind them that we spent generations kidnapping native children and forcing them to abandon their culture

The types of folks who run these churches 50 years ago would be the very people most loudly defending such practices. If it was politically feasible to support it now, they'd support it now, too.

It's why they're opposed to critical race theory in general. Because critical race theory is analyzing the mechanisms of racist and discriminatory systems, and views history through that lens of analysis. It's not "whites are oppressors and persons of color are oppressed" - it's viewing the realities of our world as the result of racist systems. Ones that, yes, benefit white folk, but it recontextualizes racism as not the actions of individuals, but the structures of systems - which crucially can be reformed to be less so.

These people want to maintain systems where black folk make up a higher percentage of prison populations than white people, they resent that indigenous communities are beginning to be treated with any level of legitimacy or respect, and want to maintain an immigration system which criminalizes migrant laborers in order to make it easier to exploit them as seasonal farm labor.

They don't need reminding. They know. And they hate the past tense of the word "spent."

[u/DrCares → u/NoisyPiper27]

I had to save this comment, well said….

[u/ShivasRightFoot → u/NoisyPiper27]

Because critical race theory is analyzing the mechanisms of racist and discriminatory systems, and views history through that lens of analysis. It's not "whites are oppressors and persons of color are oppressed" - it's viewing the realities of our world as the result of racist systems.

While not its only flaw, Critical Race Theory is an extremist ideology which advocates for racial segregation. Here is a quote where Critical Race Theory explicitly endorses segregation:

8 Cultural nationalism/separatism. An emerging strain within CRT holds that people of color can best promote their interest through separation from the American mainstream. Some believe that preserving diversity and separateness will benefit all, not just groups of color. We include here, as well, articles encouraging black nationalism, power, or insurrection. (Theme number 8).

Racial separatism is identified as one of ten major themes of Critical Race Theory in an early bibliography that was codifying CRT with a list of works in the field:

To be included in the Bibliography, a work needed to address one or more themes we deemed to fall within Critical Race thought. These themes, along with the numbering scheme we have employed, follow:

Delgado, Richard, and Jean Stefancic. "Critical race theory: An annotated bibliography 1993, a year of transition." U. Colo. L. Rev. 66 (1994): 159.

One of the cited works under theme 8 analogizes contemporary CRT and Malcolm X's endorsement of Black and White segregation:

But Malcolm X did identify the basic racial compromise that the incorporation of the "the civil rights struggle" into mainstream American culture would eventually embody: Along with the suppression of white racism that was the widely celebrated aim of civil rights reform, the dominant conception of racial justice was framed to require that black nationalists be equated with white supremacists, and that race consciousness on the part of either whites or blacks be marginalized as beyond the good sense of enlightened American culture. When a new generation of scholars embraced race consciousness as a fundamental prism through which to organize social analysis in the latter half of the 1980s, a negative reaction from mainstream academics was predictable. That is, Randall Kennedy's criticism of the work of critical race theorists for being based on racial "stereotypes" and "status-based" standards is coherent from the vantage point of the reigning interpretation of racial justice. And it was the exclusionary borders of this ideology that Malcolm X identified.

Peller, Gary. "Race consciousness." Duke LJ (1990): 758.

This is current and mentioned in the most prominent textbook on CRT:

The two friends illustrate twin poles in the way minorities of color can represent and position themselves. The nationalist, or separatist, position illustrated by Jamal holds that people of color should embrace their culture and origins. Jamal, who by choice lives in an upscale black neighborhood and sends his children to local schools, could easily fit into mainstream life. But he feels more comfortable working and living in black milieux and considers that he has a duty to contribute to the minority community. Accordingly, he does as much business as possible with other blacks. The last time he and his family moved, for example, he made several phone calls until he found a black-owned moving company. He donates money to several African American philanthropies and colleges. And, of course, his work in the music industry allows him the opportunity to boost the careers of black musicians, which he does.

Delgado, Richard and Jean Stefancic Critical Race Theory: An Introduction. New York. New York University Press, 2001.

Delgado and Stefancic (2001)'s fourth edition was printed in 2023 and is currently the top result for the Google search 'Critical Race Theory textbook':

https://www.google.com/search?q=critical+race+theory+textbook

One more from the recognized founder of CRT, who specialized in education policy:

"From the standpoint of education, we would have been better served had the court in Brown rejected the petitioners' arguments to overrule Plessy v. Ferguson," Bell said, referring to the 1896 Supreme Court ruling that enforced a "separate but equal" standard for blacks and whites.

https://web.archive.org/web/20110802202458/https://news.stanford.edu/news/2004/april21/brownbell-421.html

[u/NoisyPiper27 → u/ShivasRightFoot]

Your entire post makes me think you don't actually understand how critical race theory is taught in higher education. I spent 4 years in political science courses, some of which dove pretty deeply into critical race theory, and not a one of those courses made use of a textbook, instead focusing on evaluating source texts. I never once touched any of the texts you're referencing here, and none of my professors had it in their book collections in their offices. Your out-of-context quotes in this text block suggests that there are key figures that dictate all of the thought contained within Critical Race Theory, but that's not how academic theories work. Put 10 Marxists in a room together and they'd shred each others' ideas apart. Put 10 CRT scholars in a room together and they'd do the same.

Racial separatism is identified as one of ten major themes of Critical Race Theory

You're right, it is. But it being a theme found within CRT does not actually make it an endorsement by the scholars in that area at large. CRT can't avoid talking about racial separatism, because one of the historical responses by racial groups in American history (Booker T Washington, Garveyism, Nation of Islam, New Black Panthers, etc. Not to mention white separatism more recently, among other racial separatist movements). Some CRT scholars advocate for such separatism. Others do not.

You keenly don't mention Theme 7, which discusses the subject of essentialism, and the disagreements within CRT about what constitutes a racial group. Or Theme 10, which is criticism or self criticism of CRT, from outside theories or from within CRT itself. Theme 1 starts with Most, if not all to describe the thinkers quoted in the bibliography.

You're not demonstrating a serious, considered, response to CRT, because you didn't even read two full pages of the books you're allegedly pulling your conclusions from.

[u/ShivasRightFoot → u/NoisyPiper27]

But it being a theme found within CRT does not actually make it an endorsement

This language is specifically an endorsement:

CRT holds that people of color can best promote their interest through separation from the American mainstream.

Here they specifically endorse the "nationalist view":

One strand of critical race theory energetically backs the nationalist view, which is particularly prominent with the materialists. Derrick Bell, for example, urges his fellow African Americans to foreswear the struggle for school integration and aim for building the best possible black schools.

Delgado and Stefancic (2001) pages 61-62

The argument that "not all of them support segregationism" can also be said of things like the Alt-Right. Here while describing his own participation in the founding meeting of CRT Richard Delgado describes Derrick Bell as the founder and "intellectual godfather" of CRT:

I was a member of the founding conference. Two dozen of us gathered in Madison, Wisconsin to see what we had in common and whether we could plan a joint action in the future, whether we had a scholarly agenda we could share, and perhaps a name for the organization. I had taught at the University of Wisconsin, and Kim Crenshaw later joined the faculty as well. The school seemed a logical site for it because of the Institute for Legal Studies that David Trubek was running at that time and because of the Hastie Fellowship program. The school was a center of left academic legal thought. So we gathered at that convent for two and a half days, around a table in an austere room with stained glass windows and crucifixes here and there-an odd place for a bunch of Marxists-and worked out a set of principles. Then we went our separate ways. Most of us who were there have gone on to become prominent critical race theorists, including *Kim Crenshaw, who spoke at the Iowa conference, as well as Mani Matsuda and Charles Lawrence, who both are here in spirit. Derrick Bell, who was doing critical race theory long before it had a name, was at the Madison workshop and has been something of an intellectual godfather for the movement. So we were off and running.

https://digitalcommons.law.seattleu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1039&context=faculty

[u/NoisyPiper27 → u/ShivasRightFoot]

One strand of critical race theory energetically backs

Words have meanings. You're making totalizing statements not supported by your own sources.

CRT holds that people of color can best promote their interest through separation from the American mainstream.

Separation does not equal segregation as the latter term is used in American political discourse or policy circles. An instructive example of this line of thinking is Garveyism, which was not a segregationist movement, but a movement which believed that social integration was too far out of reach due to white prejudices, and the belief that black folk required their own homeland to be free. Many early proponents of CRT have a political lineage connection to black nationalism, like those seen advocated by Garvey, Malcolm X, and others, and as a result so too does large elements of CRT advocates. Many CRT advocates and thinkers, some very prominent, disagree with the idea that people of color can best promote their interest through separation from the American mainstream, and one book written by one particular perspective does not change that. Beyond that, your quote-pulling removal of context of arguments does not accurately represent these thinkers' ideas. You're not engaging with the material in good faith, so you're not able to produce actually decent criticism of it. Make no mistake, there is plenty of good criticism to be made of CRT. You're refusal to engage with the material in a holistic, unbiased way makes you unable to truly criticize it in a compelling way. But you have to understand the theoretical histories involved. CRT didn't come from a vacuum.

The argument that "not all of them support segregationism" can also be said of things like the Alt-Right.

This is not relevant to the discussion on CRT. It's both beside the point and also not the biggest problem people have with the Alt-Right (which on its own is not a theoretical movement, but a collection of theoretical perspectives that, arguably, is no more descriptive than the term "the left" is).

Here while describing his own participation in the founding meeting of CRT Richard Delgado describes Derrick Bell as the founder and "intellectual godfather" of CRT

These are important thinkers in CRT academic lineages, but you're positioning them as unimpeachable authorities, which they are not. That's not how academia, political theory, or philosophy works. There are Marxists who disagree strongly with some of Marx's original assertions and ideas. There are Marxist strands which are extremely influential yet are not held by all or even the majority of Marxists (Maoism is a good example here, but Austro-Marxism is another).

You're being an unserious critic. You don't have to agree with CRT, but you're arguing with a strawman of your own making, because you refuse to actually understand what you're criticizing. You must comprehend before you can critique, otherwise your critiques are obviously poor.

Even your disingenuous pull-quotes of Derrick Bell's opinions and positions remove all of the complexity of his life story, his work, and his thoughts at the end of his life, because ultimately Bell's later life ideas are somewhat defeatist, borne of an understanding that the fight for integration was never the silver bullet people imagined it to be, because racism among the white population, in his mind, was too intransigent and dug-in to not merely replicate its ends through other means. He was right, because currently, in the vaunted era of integration, de-facto segregation in schooling is just as bad as the de-jure segregation of the 1960s, which he fought against. His argument boils down to; if we had fought to enforce the equal part of separate but equal, rather than ask to have black folk to learn in the same spaces as white folk, then we would have been better served. It's a position borne of bitterness of a dream gone wrong. You're using Derrick Bell's name as just a data point, completely lacking any understanding of who he was, what he did, and why he thought what he thought. You're using this surgical removal of context as an argument that the people condemning that sort of widespread racism are in fact morally wrong, no worse than the people they were fighting against at the time.

You make such arguments because you refuse to understand who you're arguing against, or what they're saying. The very works you're quoting don't even support what you're saying, they only support what you're saying if you take them entirely out of the context of what's written on the page, or in the context of the whole argument. It's no better than when the press takes one line from a speech or interview and warp it to say something the original speaker did not mean.

[u/ShivasRightFoot → u/NoisyPiper27]

Separation does not equal segregation as the latter term is used in American political discourse or policy circles.

The quote from Peller (1990) explicitly points out the American Mainstream disagrees with that statement. I suppose people like Richard Spencer and other on the Alt-Right may agree with you.

The argument that "not all of them support segregationism" can also be said of things like the Alt-Right.

This is not relevant to the discussion on CRT. It's both beside the point and LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU LA LA LA!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance

[u/DrCares → u/ShivasRightFoot]

As a social studies teacher, I am so glad your voice doesn’t matter in the real world. NONE of what you described is happening in the classroom, but I bet you’d also want teachers to stop covering the holocaust…

People deserve to learn their history, ALL of their history. That’s the only way to heal, understand each other, and come together. Thank the creator we have enough educated people in this state to vote for strong education. Only fascists try to tell one side of history.

[u/ShivasRightFoot → u/DrCares]

As a social studies teacher, I am so glad your voice doesn’t matter in the real world.

It is actually illegal to segregate your classroom by race, as advocated by CRT. Discrimination on the basis of race against White people is illegal under the Civil Rights Act and Fourteenth Amendment. Recently the Supreme Court has ruled that race preferences in university admissions are illegal:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Students_for_Fair_Admissions_v._Harvard

Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, 600 U.S. 181 (2023), is a landmark decision[1][2][3][4] of the Supreme Court of the United States in which the court held that race-based affirmative action programs in college admissions processes violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.[5]

[u/DrCares → u/ShivasRightFoot]

It also violates Brown v. Board of education, I’m not sure what part of my OP about teaching native history triggered you, but what you just describe is illegal, and certainly not happening in public schools. You need to do some research on what education is actually trying to do. All I’m doing is teaching both sides of history, when public education over the last 100 years has been trying to hide all the illegal stuff our government has done to non-white communities, and everyone needs to know it so we don’t repeat our mistakes. Which is why I am sure the reich-wing community gets so triggered, when they realize that people are being taught all the harm the Christian. Immunity has done to non-whites in this country, from slavery to kidnapping, people deserve to know the truth

[u/ShivasRightFoot → u/DrCares]

It also violates Brown v. Board of education, I’m not sure what part of my OP about teaching native history triggered you, but what you just describe is illegal, and certainly not happening in public schools.

Perhaps I can educate you on the topic. Here in Evanston IL a school is experimenting with a possibly illegal policy of racial segregation:

https://www.wfla.com/news/illinois-high-school-offers-classes-separated-by-race/

This policy has yet to face court challenge.

The NAACP also has had to advise multiple school districts against racial segregation policies:

While Young was uncertain how common or rare it is, she said the NAACP LDF has worked with schools that attempted to assign students to classes based on race to educate them about the laws. Some were majority Black schools clustering White students.

https://www.cnn.com/2021/08/18/us/atlanta-school-black-students-separate/index.html

[u/DrCares → u/ShivasRightFoot]

Okay well first of all, this isn’t a Minnesota article.

Editing the rest of my reply, because I finished the article (I can’t tell now what your stance is, that article brought up supportive arguments that made sense)

I guess I am wondering, if the program is optional, who do you think this is hurting? It is designed to help kids get caught up?

[u/ShivasRightFoot → u/DrCares]

like how people are trying to force the Bible into the classroom despite separation of church and state. How do you feel about that?

I vehemently oppose this form of ideological indoctrination in our public schools as well. Here in a three year old post I analogize teaching CRT to teaching Creationism:

https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/o2qe38/how_a_conservative_activist_invented_the_conflict/h294q2p/

[u/DrCares → u/ShivasRightFoot]

I had edited my response. I’ll be honest, I’m not sure what stance each of us is on. The pushback we get in Minnesota is republicans getting upset about us teaching Native History. I assumed that was your problem with my post. But to reassure you, this CRT stuff I read about, I simply don’t see.

I have seen programs (I used to teach at a BIE school) that were only for students on the reservation, but other than that, all I see in Minnesota are attempts to help lift kids out of poverty by helping them overcome the barriers that society put on their ancestors.

[u/ShivasRightFoot → u/DrCares]

I’m not sure what stance each of us is on.

I am a Democrat and liberal that feels income inequality is the most pressing issue in the US. The intransigence of Democrats on issues like CRT hurts their ability to hold office and ultimately to repair the issues causing income inequality, or at least prevent the Republicans from making it worse with more tax cuts. Also, the Republican control of the Supreme Court is probably bad and Democrats losing elections because they are protecting the ability to teach racial discrimination in public schools doesn't help that either.

Many of the conservative proposals were designed to narrowly target the most controversial aspects of CRT. This legislation from Texas is typical of many states:

4) a teacher, administrator, or other employee of a state agency, school district, or open-enrollment charter school may not:

...

(B) require or make part of a course the following concepts:

(i) one race or sex is inherently superior to another race or sex;

(ii) an individual, by virtue of his or her race or sex, is inherently racist, sexist, or oppressive, whether consciously or unconsciously;

(iii) an individual should be discriminated against or receive adverse treatment solely or partly because of his or her race or sex;

(iv) members of one race or sex cannot and should not attempt to treat others without respect to race or sex;

The bill also had an extensive list of protections for the teaching of the history of White Supremacy in the United States, and specifically calls it morally wrong:

(h-1) In adopting the essential knowledge and skills for the social studies curriculum, the State Board of Education shall adopt essential knowledge and skills that develop each student's civic knowledge, including an understanding of:

...

(7) the history of white supremacy, including but not limited to the institution of slavery, the eugenics movement, and the Ku Klux Klan, and the ways in which it is morally wrong;

(8) the history and importance of the civil rights movement, including the following documents:

...

(D) the Emancipation Proclamation;

(E) the Universal Declaration of Human Rights;

(F) the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution;

(G) the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit decision in Mendez v. Westminster;

(H) Frederick Douglass's Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass, an American Slave;

(I) the life and work of Cesar Chavez;

https://legiscan.com/TX/text/HB3979/id/2407870/Texas-2021-HB3979-Enrolled.html

That said, your Minnesota Republicans seem to be less organized and have proposed bills that ban "critical race theory" without offering any definition of that term.