Talk:Critical race theory/Archive 7

This is an archive of past discussions about Critical race theory. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Christopher Rufo

The WaPo article is being contested by Christopher Rufo. Until evidence is provided that Rufo stated this, it cannot be used as a source. Sadiq.shami (talk) 12:30, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Nonsense. The Washington Post is a gold-standard reliable source. That Rufo is red, mad, and nude online about something is of no concern to us. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 12:32, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Sadiq.shami This ridiculous demand, coupled with your use of unreliable sources, such as James Lindsay's blog, to make claims about living people suggests that you do not understand Wikipedia policies for sourcing. I strongly suggest you review WP:RS, WP:V, and WP:BLP before further editing on controversial topics such as this one. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 12:48, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

What an absurd response. So no evidence is necessary for editors such as yourself - a potentially fabricated quote in a "reliable source" will do. Sadiq.shami (talk) 00:46, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Is this the "potentially fabricated" quote? Seems unlikely, unless somebody hacked his Twitter. The Washington Post is generally considered reliable as a news source. If you have doubts about this specific article you can raise them at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:00, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

What is your evidence that the quote is fabricated? I kindly remind you that "Christopher Rufo said so" is not evidence. WP:MANDY applies here. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:09, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

How about the fact that they retracted it? You'd think the paper admitting the errors in a lengthy correction and openly stating they have no proof that the quote was ever made would be evidence. Not for for the wiki activists though apparently. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:4B:300:5480:60C3:9DD5:AD5E:C7EA (talk) 23:31, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Please show the evidence that the Washington Post has retracted this story. Hint: if you are unfamiliar with journalism, a "clarification" is not a retraction. Which quote do you claim is fabricated, and upon what evidence do you make that claim? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:28, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

That is not what he wrote in his Twitter - that is the account of a conversation given by a WaPo journalist which he contests. I wrote the exact Twitter quote but you deleted it. A reliable source is determined by proving its veracity; not the apparent prestige of the publication. Sadiq.shami (talk) 02:23, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

WaPo corrected the story - so go ahead and correct yours. Sadiq.shami (talk) 02:38, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

@Sadiq.shami: You wrote here that you were concerned about "a potentially fabricated quote in a 'reliable source'". The only sentence in this article that quotes Rufo and is sourced to WaPo is "The goal is to have the public read something crazy in the newspaper and immediately think 'critical race theory,'" so that the term would become synonymous with "the entire range of cultural constructions that are unpopular with Americans". Sangdeboeuf has pointed out that Rufo's verified Twitter account still shows a tweet which reads, The goal is to have the public read something crazy in the newspaper and immediately think "critical race theory." We have decodified the term and will recodify it to annex the entire range of cultural constructions that are unpopular with Americans. (underlining added). So are you saying that the tweet was somehow fabricated? GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 02:41, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Can you clarify what needs to be corrected in this article? I see that WaPo added a note that "This report has been changed to clarify the sequence of events that followed Rufo’s appearance on Fox News last summer." But as far as I can tell the only statement related to Fox and Rufo in this article, which is that Trump issued an EO after seeing Rufo on Fox, is still supported by the WaPo source. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 02:45, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

• Regardless of Rufo's issues with the Washington Post story, multiple other sources have summarized his words the same way, using a variety of similar quotes taken from his public writings and comments. The New Yorker even summarizes his views as being that the term seemed like a promising political weapon. Rufo was extremely upfront in his public writings that his efforts to call attention to the term were based on his beliefs that doing so could serve a tactical purpose. It is possible that he now regrets being so blunt, but per WP:MANDY, the simple fact that someone dislikes what sources say about them or how sources summarize their words doesn't disqualify the sources if secondary coverage fails to back those objections up. --Aquillion (talk) 03:59, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
• [W]hat he wrote in his Twitter is confirmed by the links above and several independent sources. I'm not seeing any account of a conversation given by a WaPo journalist mentioned in the article, unless it's his Fox News appearance, in which case saying Rufo denounced CRT seems pretty uncontroversial. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:32, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 June 2021

This edit request to Critical race theory has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The following requires a citation:

In addition to law, critical race theory is taught and applied in the fields of education, political science, women's studies, ethnic studies, communication, sociology, and American studies. 2601:543:101:AB90:D971:9629:9543:C656 (talk) 22:02, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: That sentence and the ones following are all supported by the citation given at the end of the paragraph. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 22:12, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 June 2021

This edit request to Critical race theory has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The last sentence of the intro paragraph, referencing, June 2021, 8 states have banned teaching "critical race theory" (CRT) needs some major explanation. The so-called "critical race theory" banned by these states is not the same CRT explained in this Wiki entry. In fact, it is more like an exact opposite. I don't even know what to call it. It's like a conspiracy theory but not exactly. It's a total mis-application of the phrase "critical race theory" to designate something that is actually opposite of CRT. I believe what the states object to and have legislated against is the NY Times's 1619 Project. I don't have references, but I will find some. For now, here's one

https://www.edweek.org/teaching-learning/lawmakers-push-to-ban-1619-project-from-schools/2021/02

This sentence in the entry should be deleted right away. It needs a whole lot of explanation. Until that is available, it establishes a dangerous false equivalence with CRT, and legitimizes an incorrect near-conspiracy rant currently in circulation. Pinheadff (talk) 21:41, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

You must provide reliable sources for the changes you want to make (the one source you made doesn't even mention CRT and doesn't seem to support your claims), especially given that your claims seem fairly exceptional given that the sources about the ban mention Richard Delgado, Derrick Bell, and other major academic figures, and directly connect it to conservatives who disagree with the field of academic study that this article defines. It's not surprising that you're not sure what it is - many sources do say that the Republicans pushing these bans seem a bit unclear on what, precisely, they are banning (as we see in the fairly candid quote from Christopher Rufo, the conservative activist who sparked the current fixation on the word, this is by design), but while they're using it as a bit of a bête noire or snarlword for everything they disagree with, the sources we have indicate that what this article describes is the only precise meaning critical race theory has. --Aquillion (talk) 21:59, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't see a problem. State legislatures banned the teaching of CRT, the 1619 project and diversity training. The article doesn't say they are the same thing. TFD (talk) 00:12, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Which state legislatures actually banned CRT? Most of the state laws that are said to ban teaching of CRT do not mention the term CRT. As the state laws are publicly available they should be the reliable source. Awaker81 (talk) 08:12, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

@Awaker81:: They're mentioned in the sources. I think YOU should be answering a question: you claim that "[m]ost of the state laws" don't mention CRT. Okay, back that claim up: name those states, specifically, that don't mention CRT. --Calton | Talk 11:08, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

TFD: That was my problem: allowing that sentence to sit there, right up front, in the entry describing CRT, without further explanation (i.e., correction) implies, by default, that they ARE the same thing, and Wiki perpetuates Chris Rufo's diabolical design. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pinheadff (talk • contribs) 01:16, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't see any confusion, but you are free to suggest improved wording. My understanding of the 1619 Project is that it claims that by having slavery Americans chose "low road" capitalism, as if U.S. capitalism could have developed without slavery and social problems are caused by individual choices rather than capitalism per se. That doesn't sound very Marxist to me, but it might to the scholars of the bible colleges of the American South. TFD (talk) 17:58, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

• I do think that we could possibly cover the "what, exactly, are these efforts trying to ban?" aspect, since numerous sources have covered the confusion on that point. But I don't agree that there's any reliable sources suggesting that the bans do target some clearly-defined or genuine threat - most coverage seems to say the opposite, that it's a vaguely-defined mishmash of buzzwords for things Republicans dislike or disagree with. Several sources also note that there is no indication that there is an underlying problem these efforts are trying to address (eg. .) That's something we should probably cover, too. --Aquillion (talk) 04:06, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

The lead should clarify that the way CRT is used by conservatives entails an [intentional] conflating of various left-wing race-related ideas (whether they have anything to do with CRT or not). We could quote Rufo who has been described by RS as the driver behind these efforts. This means that this edit has to be reverted. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:18, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't think it's necessarily left-wing to say that there has been racism in U.S. history that continues today. TFD (talk) 19:45, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

I replied to this same point under #Split out an article about 2020s controversies?. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:48, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

"Criticism: Academic"

It is inappropriate to include a criticism section and then within that very criticism section, respond to the criticism with rebuttal. Presenting your case, acknowledging criticism and then responding to that criticism is a method of persuasive writing. The purpose of an encyclopedia should be to inform, not persuade. The criticism section should simply present the criticism. Responding to cherry-picked criticism is not a legitimate use of an encyclopedia, even if it is a convenient one. If pro-CRT editors of this article, who can be seen throughout this talk page using derogatory name calling and insinuations of bad faith against their political opponents, cannot resist "debunking" criticism against their politics, they should refrain from editing articles about their politics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.157.37.5 (talk) 19:14, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

It would be misrepresentative to only show negative commentary about the subject and omit the positive. —C.Fred (talk) 19:18, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Criticism sections are inherently POV and should be avoided. Any criticism should be put into other sections. Criticism follows things that people do. It's neutral to say what someone did, then present criticism, then their rebuttal. It's POV to present criticism then defense. I suggest we remove the section, moving any relevant criticism into the relevant sections. TFD (talk) 00:53, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

I tend to agree. Especially with the current anti-CRT brouhaha, a criticism section is going to end up a POV magnet and be a giant headache to manage. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:58, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Rather, burying criticism in other sections is POV. As a set of ideas, of course there is criticism, and a section for it makes perfect sense. It's not like this is a person or something else where it would be odd. Criticism sections are very common, as are whole articles (e.g. Criticism of capitalism and Criticism of socialism). It don't see where it would fit contextually. As for being a POV magnet, the article is already semiprotected until August 7 (and will probably be again thereafter if needed), and such disruptive edits are much more common in the lead, and will occur with or without the section. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:22, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

It's not burying criticism, it's putting it in context. Often criticism is praise, depending on the viewer. Capitalism has been criticized for supporting private ownership, while socialism has been criticized for supporting social ownership. Why not explain each system's ownership and explain why it is good or bad, rather than introduce it as a criticism and provide a defense? TFD (talk) 06:07, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

...burying criticism in other sections is POV: NPOV policy says otherwise. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 17:04, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

It says that there are "varying views" on criticism sections (in the footnote). Crossroads ^-talk- 23:30, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

• Removing the section seems good to me. We could just replace it with "Academic Reception", which I think is the important part. The fundamental issue here is that (as a lot of sources have indicated, and as many of the people in the current brouhaha in the US have candidly stated) a lot of the "criticism" of CRT has nothing to do with CRT, so trying to compile it into a single section is asking for trouble. --Aquillion (talk) 15:31, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

• "Academic criticism" could do, but if it's called 'reception' of some sort, then that leads to the complaint that it's all negative. Positive material is going to naturally be by people who see value in CRT and hence use it, which doesn't really make it 'reception' anymore but just more description of CRT. Crossroads ^-talk- 23:30, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Definitions

Crossroads reverted my attempt at improving the first line of the lead in a way that makes sense to someone coming to the article for the first time (which was what I was doing). I have not read the whole article and have no interest in getting involved in the nitty-gritty as I don't have time, but would like to explain on what grounds I restructured the intro. (And btw, articles in The Conversation are written by academics - they're not run-of-the-mill news or opinions, and the article in question gives a dispassionate overview/summary of what it is, which is separate from its placement within the Australian cultural/political context.)
My main issue is that it just doesn't make sense to define a theory as an academic movement, and even in the source cited, all of the rest of the first two pages refers to CRT as the theory, framework, body of writings, ideas, whatever you want to call it, not "the movement" that created it: "It is defined by...scholars"; "originators of CRT include...[people]". This advance summary of a forthcoming article in the Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Education says "Critical Race Theory (CRT) is a framework...". Purdue College of Liberal Arts says "CRT, is a theoretical and interpretive mode that examines the appearance of race and racism across dominant cultural modes of expression. The American Bar Association defines it as "a practice of interrogating the role of race and racism in society that emerged in the legal academy and spread to other fields of scholarship. Crenshaw—who coined the term “CRT”—notes that CRT is not a noun, but a verb. It cannot be confined to a static and narrow definition but is considered to be an evolving and malleable practice...", etc. (although that is a rather bizarre way of trying to express that it's an evolving practice - it still doesn't make a noun a verb!). I'm sure there are dozens, if not hundreds, of other defintions, but my point is that having the sole definition in the first sentence as if the word describes a "movement" just doesn't make sense and is not an adequate description for the lead. (Collins: A movement is a group of people who share the same beliefs, ideas, or aims.). I hope that my rather long-winded explanation adequately explains my point, which is about the use of language, not the substance. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 04:23, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

I agree with this criticism. In common usage, CRT is not used to refer to some academic legal 'movement'. In my opinion, the opening of this article is representative of a common motte and bailey used to defend and obfuscate CRT. CRT is clearly a theory, a framework, and a worldview, one that is oppositional towards some fundamental liberal values. It is not a 'critique' but rather an outright rejection of, for example, the principle of equality under the law. The introduction of CRT as simply an academic legal 'movement', also gives an undeserved sense of rigor, stasis, and legitimacy to a set of beliefs that are being taught in and are informing the policies of public elementary schools in the US, being shared, discussed, defined, and debated on social media, and being talked about on cable news channels. It is absolutely insufficient to introduce CRT as "an academic movement". I think that most of the article's references to the 'academic movement' must be contained in a history section.

I also would add that the verbs in the Views section are very bad. Verbs like *question*, *critique*, *examine*, *explore* should not be used. There are a set of defined beliefs. CRT does not *question* liberalism, it rejects it. It *says*, *asserts*, *holds*, or *believes* equality under the law (colorblindness) is bad. The dialectic (?) verbs are imprecise and do not correctly represent that there are concrete *views* that are *held*. Maddata (talk) 16:01, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

From the above, Maddata, it seems that you believe CRT to consist of a (fairly dogmatic) set of defined beliefs, of concrete *views* that are *held* (sic). Do you have WP:RS that support this interpretation, or is it WP:OR? Newimpartial (talk) 18:39, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

I wouldn't represent all of them as dogmatic, but some certainly are (e.g. 'racism is ordinary'). In any case yes there are a core set of definite beliefs that are held, and appear for example in Delgado as Basic Tenets and Themes. In other sources the same themes are discussed, including to criticize the oppositional relationship to liberalism. These themes also appear in pop culture messaging influenced by CRT. Maddata (talk) 20:49, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Basing this article in any way on the pop culture messaging influenCed by CRT seems like a fairly serious error, since that isn't what the article is about. I will take it, then, that the formation of core beliefs that are held is, in fact, OR/caricature. Newimpartial (talk) 21:46, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Undid Edit Revert

User:Newimpartial reverted my edit saying "weird and mostly unexplained terminological changes". I undid the revert because I feel its wrong to discard my contribution instead of improving it. I believe my change improved the readability and accuracy of the passage. I used the source to make the edits, and directly leveraged some of the examples from it. Finally, the edit consisted of more than terminological changes. I explained my reasoning above in the talk page, that dialectical verbs like 'critique' 'explore' seem inappropriate to relate what CRT 'asserts' 'believes' or 'views'. Maddata (talk) 17:36, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Per the best practice WP:BRD, the stable version should be left while the issue is discussed. Also, do the reliable sources on this topic generally use dialectical verbs, or verbs of belief? My sense is that they use the former. Newimpartial (talk) 17:45, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Just peeked at the Google Books preview for Delgado & Stefancic 2017 and checked out page 3, which is our citation for the first claims in Critique of liberalism. Quoting as little as possible, it does prominently say that CRT "questions the very foundations of the liberal order". I find "Critique of" and "question" to be more supported than "Opposition to" and "rejects" as a summary of that page. I am not sure about the rest of Maddata's proposed changes, but I think they'll need to speak more to the way sources justify their language. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 18:45, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Sorry about that, I'm learning best practices :). I have a problem limiting the article to dialectical(?) verbs, specifically that it makes it very unclear what CRT believes. If we take it to the other extreme, what does the section read like if we just say CRT 'engages with' liberalism, 'considers' standpoint theory, and 'explores' structural determinism? It would say little to nothing about what CRT believes or is. In its current form, it barely says what structural determinism is, save for a thing that CRT explores.

Should Wikipedia be limited to using the specific verbiage of a source? I think the answer is no, but I'm not sure. ​In any case, the source I'm looking at makes general use of verbs like 'believe' and 'hold', as well as 'be discontent with' and 'be suspicious of' things crits take objection to.

For a more in-depth example, 'Critique of Liberalism' contains arguments in opposition to equality under the law, and arguments against negative rights, and uses those verbs like 'hold' and 'believe' in the body paragraphs. Just looking at this source, I understand it to say "CRT is in opposition to equality under the law. Equality under the law limits the ability of society to redress racial grievances, and it should be superseded with policies that discriminate on the basis of racial identity explicitly and only for the purpose of improving fairness". I think that should be clearly communicated by the article, instead of obtusely saying CRT "questions" concepts. The source unambiguously presents arguments stating opposition to those concepts, and they go so far as to explain why -- they are insufficient and limiting. I think those conclusions should be represented.

There's actually a very specific conflict here that might shed some light as well. The source refers to equality under the law literally once - in a quote call out (someone else's words) which identifies 'color blindness' as an aspect of being 'equal before the law'. In their own words they refer to it as 'color blindness' and 'neutral principle'. Is it fair to apply the understanding that the 'neutral principle' is in fact 'equality under the law'? The source does establish the relationship, and we can know those principles to be intimately related, one and the same.

In any case, Storytelling and standpoint epistemology need to be merged (they are the same concept) and standpoint theory needs to be linked. Structural determinism (to me) seems unclear and disconnected from the concept in the source. I'll admit my example is bad, but it does communicate the idea in the source -- maybe the 'eskimos have many words for snow' example works better, or a link to an article about how language impacts cognition would help exemplify it. The lawyer-client example is explicitly from the source, and may suffice. The "empathetic fallacy" is listed (in Delgado) as an aspect or example of structural determinism, so I don't see why it needs its own bullet. Essentialism vs Anti-Essentialism also just reads awkwardly, but I didn't touch this because I'm not sure if CRT is pro/con or both (I think both) on those ideas and I didn't feel confident writing on it.

One last question, do we want "as documented by such scholars as X Y Z" and "Delgado and Stefancic write -inline quotation-"? My intuition is that a quote goes in a quote box, and if you want to know who said something, you click the cite link (i.e. they should be removed). Maddata (talk)

To begin with, storytelling and standpoint theory are *not* the same concept (a scholar can, and many do, employ one without the other) and similarly the conflation of structural determinism and empathetic fallacy in this edit makes nonsense of both concepts. I am not here to defend Delgado's exposition of structural determinism - which already seems superficial and reductionist - but the proposed change only made this article worse.

Also, I don't see how CRT would be a subject that could "believe" anything or "hold views" - it is a form of activist scholarly discourse, and should be presented accordingly, unless the (best) sources depict it in this more simplistic way. Newimpartial (talk) 20:27, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I misunderstood the distinction between storytelling and standpoint theory. Still, I think they have a clear and obvious relationship in context of defining the set of beliefs that constitute CRT, and could be consolidated. Again, from Delgado, storytelling is consistently presented with its relationship to standpoint theory -- it is the storytelling of non-white people that is interesting to CRT. In the context of CRT, and reading the source, I see no utility to storytelling if it does not include standpoint epistemology. So I still would consolidate them, acknowledging I was wrong to say they are the same concept, because they have that fundamental relationship both in the text of the source and as ideas. Does that make sense? Is there another source I can read that shows no relationship between the two?

I also don't agree that the empathetic fallacy is wrongly conflated with structural determinism. If - in a society like ours - a mere emotional appeal is insufficient to change minds, then that is a limitation of the system to redress some wrongs -- which is the definition given in the source for structural determinism. I don't see what is being conflated. I don't have a practical understanding of your criticism of Delgado as a source that is 'superficial' and 'reductionist' when it comes to this topic. Can you explain how or why? It seems clear and obvious why Delgado used the empathetic fallacy as an example of structural determinism.

The Delgado source literally refers to "...[people] who use CRT's ideas..." (page 3). Is this enough to settle the question, that CRT has a set of beliefs? Both its proponents and critics are representing CRT as a set of ideas. Calling it nothing more than 'activist scholarly discourse' with no beliefs seems odd when its ideas are influencing content on Instagram. Taking a step back, when people say "Austrian Economics believes that recessions are caused by malinvestment", nobody responds by saying that the Austrians are in fact a collection of like-minded academics. How is this different? If I google "what is critical race theory" I get a lot of articles that define it as a "school of thought". So for all these reasons I feel quite strongly that the article should represent CRT as having beliefs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maddata (talk • contribs) 22:20, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps you should read Austrian school again. I don't see any of the clumsy "believes" or "holds" statements you are promoting here. And "ideas" cannot be conflated with "beliefs" - the two terms do not mean the same thing, and they connote very differently. I feel as though we need to step back to basics to even begin a discussion here, Newimpartial (talk) 23:33, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Common themes section

This edit request to Critical race theory has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

In the section of "common themes" the reference 29 ^[1] is used several times to justify the 9 themes listed. Yet the Delgado & Stefancic citation lists 10 themes. The one missing here is "Criticism and self-criticism; responses. Under this heading we include works of significant criticism addressed at CRT, either by outsiders or persons within the movement, together with responses to such criticism."

This appears to be misinformation by omission as a lot of criticism of CRT insists that its authors say no one is allowed to criticise CRT, but this additional information seems to refute that and should be included so that CRT is not misrepresented. Brianmccoo (talk) 09:10, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:18, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Brianmccoo is asking that the tenth tenet ("Criticism and self-criticism; responses. Under this heading we include works of significant criticism addressed at CRT, either by outsiders or persons within the movement, together with responses to such criticism. ") be included. Kdammers (talk) 15:48, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes, but that's not really an actionable edit request without the specific text you want to go in there. @Brianmccoo: feel free to re-open this request if you have a specific suggestion for what text should go in that section. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 02:43, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Are we not speaking the same language, or are you a lawyer? The specific request is that (either the number wording be changed or) the tenth tenet be added. A request doesn't have to give the exact wording; although Briamccoo did even give a direct quotation. I don't have a dog in this fight; I'm just trying to explain the person's request. Kdammers (talk) 16:39, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

References

1. Delgado & Stefancic 1993

Misinterpretation in the lead

Regarding the change at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Critical_race_theory&oldid=prev&diff=1030831488, the original did not summarize nor report the text as actually given in the source (on the left side), so I went to the source and used its exact words (on the right side). Another editor came around and changed it back. I believe my version, or something that is at any rate accurate, should be the one we use. See WP:BRD. Sincerely, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 19:27, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

• The status-quo was (and, is) better. Oppose changes by BeenAroundAWhile, according to the logic laid in Sangdeboeuf's edit-summary. TrangaBellam (talk) 22:40, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
• As I said in my edit summary, "fresh" and "radical" are vague and subjective. CRT's critique of liberalism is supported by multiple top-quality RSes, including the source cited. We should generally summarize sources in our own words, rather than directly quoting. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:45, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
• The "fresh and radical" language strikes me as flippant and imprecise. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:18, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
• Why don’t we use the definition written by Anne Applebaum, a staff writer at The Atlantic. She is a fellow at the SNF Agora Institute at Johns Hopkins University, and the author of Twilight of Democracy: The Seductive Lure of Authoritarianism. She wrote that it was “a line of scholarship that identifies ways that racism has shaped institutions.” (https://www.theatlantic.com/author/anne-applebaum/) It's short, from a Reliable Source and is a valid description. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 00:57, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Just to be clear, are you suggesting we remove the "academic movement" and challenging mainstream liberalism part in favor of Applebaum's definition? I definitely would not support that. For one thing, scholarly sources are generally preferred over more newsy ones, especially for scholarly topics. Applebaum's piece mainly discusses CRT (along with Marxism and Fox News commentators) in service of her broader point about needing to be able to see other people's point of view. Fine and dandy, of course, but it's mainly a topical opinion piece, not a thoroughly researched analysis. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:03, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
    • I simply favor clarity. Ms. Applebaum is a scholar with a reputation to uphold, and you can bet that her definition was parsed over by an entire corps of The Atlantic editors before it was printed. Then there is another one, by Rebecca Bodenheimer, that CRT is "a school of thought meant to emphasize the effects of race on one's social standing." (https://www.thoughtco.com/critical-race-theory-4685094). I am not wedded to anything except simplicity and accuracy. Popular writers have a gift for boiling Big Fat Ideas into something digestible that the average person can understand (like turning pork fat into bacon). Thanks for listening, and I hope you can come up with something that will help our readers. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 01:37, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
      • Even if that were true (I doubt it), Applebaum is not writing in a scholarly publication, and the cited sources are also by scholars with reputations, and checked by editors. I don't see any reason to favor these recent popular sources over more established ones. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:58, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
      • How about this:

        Critical race theory (CRT) is a loose academic movement of civil-rights scholars and activists in the United States who seek to critically examine U.S. law as it intersects with issues of race and to challenge mainstream liberal approaches to racial justice.^[1][2] As a framework for legal analysis, CRT is based on the idea that race is a socially constructed category rather than a natural, biological one, which serves to uphold the interests of white people and oppress people of color.^[2][3] In this view, legal institutions in the United States are tools to maintain racial inequality despite being officially color-blind.^[2]

        --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:44, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
        • Looks good to me, though I suggest dropping 'loose', since it's sort of vague and hard to interpret. Crossroads ^-talk- 06:03, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
          • See my comments above. I still think that describing a theory as a movement just looks incorrect, and Wikipedia is supposed to be a WP:TERTIARY that explains things in plain English, regardless of how expressed in academic or scientific literature. How can a theory be a group of people who share beliefs? It may have been synonymous with the movement or group of scholars for the first couple of decades in the US, but in plain English, and how it is taught and understood in other parts of the world regards it as the theory, not the movement. This article in the Connecticut Law Review looks back on 20 years and examines the theory. Time refers to the movement as "critical race theory movement". University of Birmingham (UK): "CRT has grown to become one of the most important perspectives on racism in education internationally". Article by a Cambridge sociologist: "as a practical social theory... conceptual framework". Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Education: "Critical Race Theory (CRT) is a framework that offers researchers, practitioners, and policy-makers...". Open University "A theoretical framework or paradigm that seeks to uncover the ways that institutional, structural, and systemic racism operate and manifest in people’s lives and in society is Critical Race Theory (CRT) (Bonilla-Silva, 1997; Ladson-Billings, 1998; Solorzano and Yosso, 2000; Delgado and Stefancic, 2001; Gillborn, 2008)." (and there's more there). In my view the opening sentence, for a globalised and plain English description, should at least firstly describe it as a theory/framework or whatever, and then make mention of the fact that the term was also used to described that particular movement or group of people. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 09:02, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

  I believe Laterthanyouthink is on to something: The idea is to write a description of CRT that is accurate yet simple enough to be easily understood. I mean, How hard can it be? "Critical race theory states that (we fill in here, with simple words anyone can understand)"? I'm sure it's been done elsewhere, and all we have to do is adopt it as our own.) BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 00:09, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

  That doesn't tell us what CRT is. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:37, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

  I'm not sure such a simple description of CRT ideas exists. As CRT scholar Gary Peller wrote in a recent essay for Politico:

  "CRT ... describes the diverse work of a small group of scholars who write about the shortcomings of conventional civil rights approaches to understanding and transforming racial power in American society. It’s a complex critique ... we ourselves struggle to put it in understandable terms. We embrace no simple or orthodox set of principles ..."

  --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 09:08, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

References

1. Ansell, Amy (2008). "Critical Race Theory". In Schaefer, Richard T. (ed.). Encyclopedia of Race, Ethnicity, and Society, Volume 1. SAGE Publications. pp. 344–346. doi:10.4135/9781412963879.n138. ISBN 978-1-4129-2694-2.
2. "Critical race theory". Encyclopedia Britannica. 16 June 2021.
3. Curry, Tommy (2009a). "Critical Race Theory". In Greene, Helen Taylor; Gabbidon, Shaun L. (eds.). Encyclopedia of Race and Crime. SAGE Publications. p. 166. ISBN 978-1-4129-5085-5.

More inclusive lead

I just want to re-raise an earlier point, and related to the whole article as well as WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY. The lead makes it sound as if CRT is only about the US. I understand that it was developed there, and US CRT scholars focus on the US situation, but the lead doesn't mention its broadening and being taken up in other countries and context (and content in the body is a bit sparse too). A few sources, if anyone wants to tackle this. UK: Race Theory comes to the UK: A Marxist response (2009); Critical race theory in England (2012); Critical race theory in England: impact and opposition (2017); Just what is critical race theory, and what is it doing in British sociology? From “BritCrit” to the racialized social system approach (2020). Australia: 2003 paper, 2011, 2017 2017.
Also, unrelated to the above, but I just happened to spot this recent article in The Conversation, Critical race theory: What it is and what it isn’t, by a philosophy academic, in case it's of any interest. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 01:52, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Per LEADFOLLOWSBODY, the lead doesn't mention it because it isn't covered in the body. Adding or expanding a relevant section under § History would be the best approach IMO. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:04, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Sangdeboeuf, the UK and Australia are mentioned (History, 2020s), but could do with expansion. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 11:15, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

NYT essay

• Comment.Kmele Foster, David French, Jason Stanley and Thomas Chatterton Williams in their essay for the NYTs state that:

  We, the authors of this essay, have wide ideological divergences on the explicit targets of this legislation. Some of us are deeply influenced by the academic discipline of critical race theory and its critique of racist structures and admire the 1619 Project. Some of us are skeptical of structural racist explanations and racial identity itself and disagree with the mission and methodology of the 1619 Project. We span the ideological spectrum: a progressive, a moderate, a libertarian and a conservative.’ Kmele Foster, David French, Jason Stanley and Thomas Chatterton Williams, 'Anti-Critical Race Theory Laws Are Un-American,' New York Times 7 July 2021

  The article helps identify these different backgrounds:Kmele Foster is a partner at Freethink and a co-host of the podcast “The Fifth Column.” David French is the senior editor of The Dispatch. Jason Stanley is a professor of philosophy at Yale University and the author of “How Fascism Works: The Politics of Us and Them.” Thomas Chatterton Williams is a contributing writer for The New York Times Magazine, a columnist at Harper’s and a visiting fellow at the American Enterprise Institute.
  Given that, one cannot pin this on leftists or some academic group attacking liberals etc., as suggested above. There is, or at least used to be, a thing called civil society, where just such a coalescence of viewpoints is/was possible because across the spectrum, from the left to the right, there was a certain respect for fundamental principles. Nishidani (talk) 16:57, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

  Multiple published, reliable sources focus on CRT's critique of liberal approaches to racial justice. As far as the above "guest essay" goes, Kmele Foster, David French, Jason Stanley, and Thomas Chatterton Williams are not subject-matter experts in critical race theory or US law. Only one (Stanley) is an academic, but in philosophy, not law. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:51, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

(1) Seems WP:UNDUE unless a non-opinion source mentions this

There is no Undue issue involved in mentioning the specific bill passed in the Tennessee Senate, since the section lists several states' adoption of similar measures. You could have left that: No. You elided it, impoverishing the article. You say this is an opinion piece interpreting a fact, and say that the four authors, all notable people in their respective professions, are not experts on critical theory.

(2)

Tennessee House Bill SB 0623, rushed through the Senate in May 2021, bans, according to four scholars of differing political persuasions, any curricular content that might cause individuals to “feel discomfort, guilt, anguish or another form of psychological distress solely because of the individual’s race or sex".Kmele Foster, David French, Jason Stanley and Thomas Chatterton Williams, 'Anti-Critical Race Theory Laws Are Un-American,' New York Times 7 July 2021.

Edit summary:’ The word "opinion" is at the very top of the page and in the URL too.’

(3) Greetings. I've reverted your addition of the NYT "guest essay" once again. The word "opinion" appears at the very top of the page. The authors Kmele Foster, David French, Jason Stanley, and Thomas Chatterton Williams are not subject-matter experts in critical race theory or US law. Only one (Stanley) is an academic, but in philosophy, not law. Thank you. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:43, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

This is all intensely sloppy on several grounds. You assert that this article cannot contain comment that does not come from subject-matter experts. Have you read the article's sources?, e.g,

• n. 10. Marisa Iati (a reporter for the General Assignment News Desk at The Washington Post.), (May 29, 2021). "What is critical race theory, and why do Republicans want to ban it in schools?". The Washington Post.
• n.20 Benjamin Wallace-Wells(Staff writer for the New Yorker) (June 18, 2021). "How a Conservative Activist Invented the Conflict Over Critical Race Theory". The New Yorker.
• n.22.Adam Harris,(Staff Writer for the Atlantic) (May 7, 2021). "The GOP's 'Critical Race Theory' Obsession". The Atlantic. .
• n.66. Alex Seitz-Wald, (Political Reporter for Salon/NBC News) (March 21, 2012). "How Breitbart and Arizona seized on 'critical race theory'". Salon. .
• n.67. Roberto Cintli Rodríguez, (Mexicanologist) (January 18, 2012). "Arizona's 'banned' Mexican American books". The Guardian.
• n.68. Michael Winerip, (Staff writer for the New York Times) (March 19, 2012). "Racial Lens Used to Cull Curriculum in Arizona". The New York Times.
• n.71. Jessica Murray (The Guardian's Midlands Reporter), (October 20, 2020). "Teaching white privilege as uncontested fact is illegal, minister says". The Guardian.
• n.72.Sian Cain,(Editor of the Guardian's Book site) (October 30, 2020). "Writers protest after minister suggests anti-racism books support segregation". The Guardian.
• n.73.Laura Meckler (national education writer for The Washington Post), Josh Dawsey,(political enterprise and investigations reporter for The Washington Post. ) (June 21, 2021). "Republicans, spurred by an unlikely figure, see political promise in critical race theory". The Washington Post.
• n.77 Tyler Kingkade ( national reporter for NBC News), Brandy Zadrozny (senior reporter for NBC News. She covers misinformation, extremism and the internet), Ben Collins) (Reporter for NBC), (June 15, 2021). "'Held hostage': How critical race theory moved from Fox News to school boards". NBC News.
• n.78. Alana Wise (Political Reporter on the Washington Desk of NPR), (September 17, 2020). "Trump Announces 'Patriotic Education' Commission, A Largely Political Move". NPR.
• n.79.Carol M. Swain (retired political scientist/Opinion), (June 3, 1993). "Black-Majority Districts: A Bad Idea". The New York Times. p. A23.
• n.80.Jessica Guynn,(Senior Technology Repèorter with USA Today) "President Joe Biden rescinds Donald Trump ban on diversity training about systemic racism". USA Today.
• n.81.Caroline Kelly (CNN Politics reporter covering breaking news in Washington)(January 20, 2021). "Biden rescinds 1776 commission via executive order". CNN.
• n.82.Nathan M. Greenfield (Canadian correspondent for Times Educational Supplement ) (June 12, 2021). "Why are states lining up to ban critical race theory?". University World News.
• n.83. Caitlin B O'Kane (Senior Producer at CBS ), (May 21, 2021). "Nearly a dozen states want to ban critical race theory in schools". CBS News.
• n.84. Oliva Waxman, (Staff Writer at Time magazine) (June 24, 2021). "'Critical Race Theory Is Simply the Latest Bogeyman.' Inside the Fight Over What Kids Learn About America's History". Time.
• n.85. Kevin Richert (Writer and blogger at Idaho Education News ),B lake Jones (Reporter at Idaho News) (April 19, 2021). "Legislative roundup, 4.19.21: New bill targets sectarianism, critical race theory". Idaho Education News.
• n.86 Biba Adams (Detroit Metro Times and freelance writer) (May 4, 2021). "Bill banning critical race theory in public schools becomes law". Yahoo News.
• n.87 Leslie Postal, (Writes on education for the Orlando Sentinel)(June 10, 2021). "Florida board votes to ban "critical race theory" from state classrooms". Orlando Sentinel.

None of those articles, full of the writers' opinions on the controversy (some even are listed as 'opinion' pieces'), was written by anyone with a 'subject-matter expertise'. So, what are you going to do? Go ahead, if you believe your edit summary, and remove the lot? (Yes, I know about WP:OTHERTHINGSEXIST. That kind of riposte is not a valid argument for your selecting one out of a score of articles, for erasure).

The only way I can make sense of your elision of that single contribution is that you disagree with the premise, that a range of people from conservative to liberals and leftists can agree that the Tennessee law outlawing what the governor called a challenge to the article of faith of American exceptionalism, namely the said Critical Race Theory constituted a dangerous attempt to muzzle education. It is totally irrelevant that they lack doctorates in the subject, since their concern is for the censorious impact on what can be taught in schools inherent in a law explicitly framed against CRT.Nishidani (talk) 11:03, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

I haven't looked at all these sources, but any opinion pieces should certainly be removed. Non-opinion news sources may also contribute to a disproportionate focus on recent controversies, but that's not the same as opinion commentary. News reporting from established outlets generally has strict editorial oversight, including fact-checking, which is lacking in the Foster/French/Stanley/Williams essay. My opinion on the Tennessee bill is irrelevant; Wikipedia is not the place to right great wrongs. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:07, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

When you wrote:'Multiple published, reliable sources focus on CRT's critique of liberal approaches to racial justice,' you revealed the motive for removal, nothing to do with policy but everything to do with the fact that the essay was written by four authors who disagree on how to evaluate CRT's 'critique of liberal' approaches to racial justice but agree that the Tennessee law designed to throttle CRT in schools is antiliberal. You apparently find this unacceptable because CRT is anti-liberal?

So you only picked on this one piece of a score that fail your criterion. I don't know whether the last remark here is just lame or inane. Who said the contention is about 'righting great wrongs' (Arthur Caulwell once defended rejection of Chinese immigration by saying 'Two Wongs don't make a White'). I don't want your opinion on the Tennessee Bill. You excised mentioning it and can give no reason why the specific bill should not be named. The New York Times factchecks even opinion pieces, and any monkey googling knows that the given datum of the Tennessee law is a fact, so your querying this is well, incomprehensible. Nishidani (talk) 22:15, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

I've removed several more opinion pieces from the article, so kindly refrain from presuming my motives and opinions, thanks. Can you provide a source to confirm that the NYT fact-checks opinion pieces? That would be helpful but not sufficient IMO. Opinion writers generally have wide leeway in choice of topics to write about, introducing weight issues. Nor is Wikipedia an indiscriminate collection of facts. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:46, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

• I think you're misunderstanding the objection. If someone is writing a news article (not an opinion piece), being a subject-matter expert isn't necessary. It is nice to have, of course, but the presumption is that when a WP:RS publishes such an article they are putting their reputation behind it and are performing proper fact-checking and accuracy. eg. Tyler Kingkade may not be an expert on this topic, but if she is writing a news article for NBC News, we presume, unless there's a reason to think otherwise, that they've done enough fact-checking before publication that there are no gross inaccuracies. Such pieces can be cited to establish facts in the article voice. Opinion-pieces and WP:RSOPINION are different - for the most part, they reflect only the opinion of the author; the publisher isn't putting as much of their reputation behind them and isn't guaranteeing their accuracy. Therefore, they're only really citeable to show that that particular writer believes something; citing them requires that the writer's opinion matters, which usually means being a subject-matter expert. There are some other cases (eg. the opinions of world leaders or other major leaders on stuff they have power over is generally considered obviously relevant), but it's tricky to make the argument of "look, look, even these people think XYZ!" on our own without engaging in WP:SYNTH. So the best thing to do is to find a secondary source. --Aquillion (talk) 07:55, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

I agree that opinion pieces should not be used in the article. They are not rs and we need secondary sources to establish the weight of any opinions they provide. However, not all of those sources are opinion pieces. Guynn's article, "President Joe Biden rescinds Donald Trump ban on diversity training about systemic racism," for example is news reporting. News reports in reliable sources are reliable sources for news. In this case, the source is used to support the statement that Biden "rescinded Trump's order to set up the 1776 Commission." While academic textbooks and review studies are better, there is a time lag between an event occurring and coverage in academic sources. TFD (talk) 23:15, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

• I don't think we should have to rely on an opinion-piece for this anyway. Secondary sources discussing the fact that some people (including some conservatives) are criticizing the laws are not hard to find. EDIT: A possible source (not the same precise essay, but it covers the same basic stuff) And even some on the right are cautious about recent legislation to limit critical race theory. David French, a former National Review staff writer and founder of the conservative news site The Dispatch, recently cautioned the “folly” of anti-critical race theory legislation. “In short, banning ideas is dangerous,” French tweeted Friday. “The statutes are overbroad and vague. Existing civil rights law provides strong protection against radical excesses without resort to banning ideas. The better course of action is replacing bad curriculum with better curriculum.” There's still some WP:DUE concerns, mostly because our coverage of the US controversy on this page is actually a relatively small part of the page (at some point we may want to consider spinning it off into a larger article, although I am not very eager to do so unless it really proves necessary.) But that would be a usable source.--Aquillion (talk) 07:55, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Well I remain unconvinced. Opinions are allowed by the policies quoted. And this opinion is peculiar because it is quadripartisan, representing four different political and cultural perspectives. Generally we presume that sn opinion refers to anyone commentator out there voicing a personal view, and to allow that is to open the door to huge volumes of individual voices shouting at each other. I think the venue and the fact that it is drafted by four people from four distinct backgrounds, each notable enough to have a wikibio, merits consideration. However, since I'm a fuckwit on the niceties of policy, I am persuaded that Sangdeboeuf's take is endorsed by Aquillion and the Four Deuces, whose judgments I can't recall ever disagreeing with so that quality of consensus trumps whatever I think in this regard. Regards Nishidani (talk) 22:08, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

I thought the contested material was about the specific contents of the Tennessee law, i.e, not an opinion but a fact. No one said opinions weren't allowed. Profanity and blasphemy are also allowed; that doesn't mean they should be used gratuitously. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:57, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Map?

Since bills are going through different states' legislature regarding the banning of critical race theory, shouldn't we have a map in the United States section of the article detailing which states have bills in progress or passed? I'd like to know what all of you think about that since I think that would help enhance the article. HauntingStomper (talk) 01:12, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

WP is WP:Not news. We can't keep updating a map (or anything else) based upon frequent changes. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 03:58, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

• I think we could eventually perhaps have such a map if multiple sources (or one really good source) has it, but without that I'm not sure it's a useful way to approach the question of how or to what extent those bills are spreading. --Aquillion (talk) 07:44, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
• Spatial visualisation is a very powerful tool. I think it is a very good idea. At a minimum, there need to be two states (as in condition), like a boolean state a) has laws or regulation prohibiting CRT b) does not have laws or regulation prohibiting CRT. These would be color coded. --Jabbi (talk) 11:34, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
• Already being done here. I will reproduce this with free sources and publish. --Jabbi (talk) 14:07, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

First draft above? Any comments? Would this improve the article? --Jabbi (talk) 21:38, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

It's UNDUE for this article. Teaching CRT in high schools isn't a major part of the topic. It's not even the primary target of the ban. TFD (talk) 00:13, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

I appreciate that's a good point TFD but until a fork is created this is the only logical place to address "Racial discrimination studies in public education in the United States". The "2020s - United States" subsection is 350 words about Republican legislation, it will most likely grow in the coming months. The graph illustrates to what degree US states have legislated. I don't understand why that's undue considering the above. --Jabbi (talk) 02:06, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

An article about banning the teaching of diversity training in some states would not be a fork of this article but of Diversity training. Even the current coverage is undue. The fact that some American conspiracy theorists confuse the two is no reason to give them extensive coverage in this article. TFD (talk) 03:28, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

It's more of a deliberate conflation than a genuine confusion, at least on the part of the activists pushing anti-CRT talking points. I think there's a case to be made for not rewarding their efforts by including coverage in this article. (Could be split off into Anti–diversity training policies in the United States, maybe?) Ultimately we have to follow the sources. My hunch is that six months to a year from now, it should be clear whether there's sustained RS coverage of this aspect. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 06:41, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Recent Republican policies deliberately attempt to conflate CRT with so-called unamerican values etc. There clearly needs to be a place in Wikipedia to document this and some of the content in this article should be moved onto whereve that is. I understand Sangdeboeuf's concerns about recentism but it's clear that for a period of several months this ideological strand of thinking is driving censorship in the USA. Combining your suggestions, what about Anti–diversity teaching in public education in the United States --Jabbi (talk) 12:10, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Criticism/United States - clarification

Regarding the statement, "Critical race theory was subsequently adopted as a major theme by several conservative think tanks and pressure groups, including the Heritage Foundation, the Idaho Freedom Foundation and the American Legislative Exchange Council."

In my opinion, this implies these groups agree with or embrace CRT, but upon reviewing the references, it appears these groups definitely do not agree with CRT.

Wouldn't it be more accurate to say something like: "Opposition to critical race theory was subsequently adopted as a major theme by several conservative think tanks and pressure groups, including ..." ? Harris7 (talk) 15:51, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

I agree. Conservatists tend to be opposed to CRT, but the statement above gives the opposite impression. From the 2nd cited source: "Throughout the winter, organizations like the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, and the American Legislative Exchange Council, which produces model bills on Republican causes, held webinars that warned about the threat of teaching critical race theory." Phlsph7 (talk) 17:56, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

 Implemented