Critical race theory
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Critical race theory (CRT) is an academic discipline focused upon the application of critical theory,[1][2] a critical examination of society and culture, to the intersection of race, law, and power.[1][2] According to the UCLA School of Public Affairs:
CRT recognizes that racism is engrained in the fabric and system of the American society. The individual racist need not exist to note that institutional racism is pervasive in the dominant culture. This is the analytical lens that CRT uses in examining existing power structures. CRT identifies that these power structures are based on white privilege and white supremacy, which perpetuates the marginalization of people of color.[3]
Legal scholar Roy L. Brooks has defined CRT as “a collection of critical stances against the existing legal order from a race-based point of view,” and says
it focuses on the various ways in which the received tradition in law adversely affects people of color not as individuals but as a group. Thus, CRT attempts to analyze law and legal traditions through the history, contemporary experiences, and racial sensibilities of racial minorities in this country. The question always lurking in the background of CRT is this: What would the legal landscape look like today if people of color were the decision-makers?[4]
The movement is loosely unified by two common themes. First, CRT proposes that white supremacy and racial power are maintained over time, and in particular, that the law may play a role in this process. Second, CRT work has investigated the possibility of transforming the relationship between law and racial power, and more broadly, pursues a project of achieving racial emancipation and anti-subordination.[5]
Appearing in U.S. law schools in the mid- to late 1980s, critical race theory began as a reaction to critical legal studies.[6] Scholars like Derrick Bell applauded the focus of civil rights scholarship on race, but were deeply critical of civil rights scholars’ commitment to colorblindness and their focus on intentional discrimination, rather than a broader focus on the conditions of racial inequality.[7][8] Likewise, scholars like Patricia Williams, Kimberlé Williams Crenshaw, and Mari Matsuda embraced the focus on the reproduction of hierarchy in critical legal studies, but criticized CLS scholars for failing to focus on racial domination and on the particular sources of racial oppression.[9]
By 2002, over 20 US law schools and at least 3 foreign law schools offered critical race theory courses or classes which covered the issue centrally.[10] Critical race theory is taught and innovated in the fields of education, political science, women’s studies, ethnic studies, and American studies.[11]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_race_theory
“The question always lurking in the background of CRT is this: What would the legal landscape look like today if people of color were the decision-makers?”
What am I missing? Has this person never heard of Chicago, Detroit, Newark, etc? That’s what the legal landscape looks like. Courts and jails filled to overflowing because of lawlessness. Filth everwhere because of the lack of respect for others property. Drugs, murder, prostitution rampant because of lack of discipline. That’s the black legal landscape and this idiot would realize this if they weren’t educated in California.