Well done again. I will describe my own framing of this terminology issue, similar to what you have said but which a few tweaks.
I distinguish "academic CRT" and "political CRT". In politics, "CRT" has a wider meaning than in academia per se; such differences in usage in different domains is not uncommon. This expanded political (impli…
Well done again. I will describe my own framing of this terminology issue, similar to what you have said but which a few tweaks.
I distinguish "academic CRT" and "political CRT". In politics, "CRT" has a wider meaning than in academia per se; such differences in usage in different domains is not uncommon. This expanded political (implicit) definition is often used BY BOTH SIDES to include practices and framings inspired by CRT, by Robin DiAngelo, by Ibram X Kendi (both very CRT influence), and other related "anti-racism" activists of similar philosophy.
Some opponents of what they perceive as "race craziness" use "CRT" as shorthand for that whole group of concepts, largely derived from academic CRT with enhancements from political activists. That shorthand for "political CRT" with its expanded coverage, is pretty much what Rufo was trying to use as a brand or label, for communicating about "the thing" that's going on in some schools.
However, those on the other side (pro-CRT) are doing the same thing, when they label legislation as "anti-CRT" even if it doesn't mention CRT or prohibit teaching academic teaching of CRT. In that, the opponents of such legislation are using the same expanded sense of political CRT, which they are implicitly defining more broadly than academic CRT.
The retreat by the pro-CRT activists, to tactically using CRT to mean only academic CRT when attacked is pretty much a "mott and bailey" argument. When they are on the attack (eg: criticizing legislation), they use CRT in the broader sense as well. If you prohibit teaching that racism is the true center of American history (eg: per 1619 project), then they believe that's anti-CRT.
Note that the NEA has explicitly endorsed the CRT framework for racial education; it's ambiguous whether they mean the narrow academic or the broader political sense of "CRT" in their endorsement. It's pretty disingenuous to say "CRT is not being taught in K12 schools anyway", when it's widely taught as truth in teaching colleges, and the largest teacher's association is advocating using it as a framework for racial pedagogy.
Well done again. I will describe my own framing of this terminology issue, similar to what you have said but which a few tweaks.
I distinguish "academic CRT" and "political CRT". In politics, "CRT" has a wider meaning than in academia per se; such differences in usage in different domains is not uncommon. This expanded political (implicit) definition is often used BY BOTH SIDES to include practices and framings inspired by CRT, by Robin DiAngelo, by Ibram X Kendi (both very CRT influence), and other related "anti-racism" activists of similar philosophy.
Some opponents of what they perceive as "race craziness" use "CRT" as shorthand for that whole group of concepts, largely derived from academic CRT with enhancements from political activists. That shorthand for "political CRT" with its expanded coverage, is pretty much what Rufo was trying to use as a brand or label, for communicating about "the thing" that's going on in some schools.
However, those on the other side (pro-CRT) are doing the same thing, when they label legislation as "anti-CRT" even if it doesn't mention CRT or prohibit teaching academic teaching of CRT. In that, the opponents of such legislation are using the same expanded sense of political CRT, which they are implicitly defining more broadly than academic CRT.
The retreat by the pro-CRT activists, to tactically using CRT to mean only academic CRT when attacked is pretty much a "mott and bailey" argument. When they are on the attack (eg: criticizing legislation), they use CRT in the broader sense as well. If you prohibit teaching that racism is the true center of American history (eg: per 1619 project), then they believe that's anti-CRT.
Note that the NEA has explicitly endorsed the CRT framework for racial education; it's ambiguous whether they mean the narrow academic or the broader political sense of "CRT" in their endorsement. It's pretty disingenuous to say "CRT is not being taught in K12 schools anyway", when it's widely taught as truth in teaching colleges, and the largest teacher's association is advocating using it as a framework for racial pedagogy.