Later: Second option, Steve: find an example where people are calling desegregation "CRT" as you assert.
That would indeed be uninformed and ironic, since CRT (colloquial usage or academic usage) is closer to the move towards resegregation.
Let me be clear that conceptually, it's quite possible for people to expand "CRT" to include not just fairly closely related framings like DiAngelo or Kendi or Hannah-Jones present, but also very different concepts [like desegregation] whose inclusion in that category would be meaningfully wrong and misleading, and if we find that to be happening I will join you in decrying such illogic. I'm just questioning whether that's happening often enough to have any importance; and examples could help shift my appraisal.
The kind of example I have in mind could include things like this: California, along with other states, has eliminated the funding disparity beween school districts based on differing local tax revenues (which depend on the local appraisals times the precentage tax rates which taxpayers are willing to shoulder for the value of education). The state adds more funds to see that all districts have the same base rate, and then adds 20% more to the budgets of underperforming districts. That's pretty much traditional liberalism at play, and should NOT be lumped in under any concept of CRT (colloquial or academic). Nor have I ever seen it so conflated, but if somebody could find such an unreasonable expansion of "CRT", I'll be glad to join in correcting it.
(Aside: Sadly, this policy of seeing that the poorest districts actually receive the highest per student funding, which I support and had much hope for, has not budged the needle much in terms of academic outcomes, so far. It appears that funding differences were not as large a causative factor for the disparities as imagined and hoped.).
Later: Second option, Steve: find an example where people are calling desegregation "CRT" as you assert.
That would indeed be uninformed and ironic, since CRT (colloquial usage or academic usage) is closer to the move towards resegregation.
Let me be clear that conceptually, it's quite possible for people to expand "CRT" to include not just fairly closely related framings like DiAngelo or Kendi or Hannah-Jones present, but also very different concepts [like desegregation] whose inclusion in that category would be meaningfully wrong and misleading, and if we find that to be happening I will join you in decrying such illogic. I'm just questioning whether that's happening often enough to have any importance; and examples could help shift my appraisal.
The kind of example I have in mind could include things like this: California, along with other states, has eliminated the funding disparity beween school districts based on differing local tax revenues (which depend on the local appraisals times the precentage tax rates which taxpayers are willing to shoulder for the value of education). The state adds more funds to see that all districts have the same base rate, and then adds 20% more to the budgets of underperforming districts. That's pretty much traditional liberalism at play, and should NOT be lumped in under any concept of CRT (colloquial or academic). Nor have I ever seen it so conflated, but if somebody could find such an unreasonable expansion of "CRT", I'll be glad to join in correcting it.
(Aside: Sadly, this policy of seeing that the poorest districts actually receive the highest per student funding, which I support and had much hope for, has not budged the needle much in terms of academic outcomes, so far. It appears that funding differences were not as large a causative factor for the disparities as imagined and hoped.).