Home schooling increasing, and not just due to Covid

and often subtle social and institutional dynamics, 

CRT examines social, cultural, and legal issues primarily as they relate to race and racism in the US.

A tenet of CRT is that racism and disparate racial outcomes are the result of complex, changing, and often subtle social and institutional dynamics, rather than explicit and intentional prejudices of individuals.

It's being discussed, seriouusly

-->@oromagi

CRT examines social, cultural, and legal issues primarily as they relate to race and racism in the US.

Are schools currently promoting curriculum material that examines social, cultural, and legal issues primarily as they relate to race and racism in the US?

-->@oromagi

And the second question...

Are schools currently promoting curriculum material teaching that racism and disparate racial outcomes are the result of complex, changing, and often subtle social and institutional dynamics, rather than explicit and intentional prejudices of individuals?

Teaching (high school) children that racism is complex, changing, and subtle is not teaching Critical Race Theory.

• Are schools currently promoting curriculum material teaching that racism and disparate racial outcomes are the result of complex, changing, and often subtle social and institutional dynamics, rather than explicit and intentional prejudices of individuals?

  All such laws and policies were eradicated

-->@oromagi

Agreed, but teaching children that systemic racism plagues Amerrica when not one systemic [read government at any level legal statute of policy statement] statement currently exists is harmful. let schools teach that individual racism is rampant, because that is true. I have long challenged that a single statute or agency policy exists that is racist be demonstrated. No one can do it, because it currently does not exist. Jim Crow died with the compliance to Civil Rights Act in 1964. All such laws and policies were eradicated. That does not mean that individuals in the system are following law and policy, but that's my point: it's individual racism, not systemic.

• We've discussed this before.  Your FOX News definition of SYSTEMIC RACISM is overly narrow.
  
• WIKIPEDIA:  Institutional racism, also known as SYSTEMIC RACISM, is a term that refers to a form of racism that is embedded in the laws and regulations of a society or an organization. It manifests as discrimination in areas such as criminal justice, employment, housing, health care, education, and political representation. The term institutional racism was first coined in 1967 by Stokely Carmichael and Charles V. Hamilton in Black Power: The Politics of Liberation.  Carmichael and Hamilton wrote in 1967 that while individual racism is often identifiable because of its overt nature, institutional racism is less perceptible because of its "less overt, far more subtle" nature. Institutional racism "originates in the operation of established and respected forces in the society, and thus receives far less public condemnation than [individual racism]".
  
• Your definition of SYSTEMIC RACISM is explicitly racist instructions in government statute which fails to account for most of what Americans mean when they talk about systemic racism.
  
• Take as an example the recent case of Gabby Petito and what Gwen Ifil used to term "Missing White Woman Syndrome."  Some critics noted that some 350  underage Indigenous girls have been reported missing in the state of Wyoming over the past ten years without ever once eliciting the sort of massive manhunt, Federal resources, and daily media attention allocated to the search for an out-of-state young and pretty white girl.  If you assume about 3500 underage Indigenous girls in Wyoming's total Indigenous population of 14,000, that makes roughly one out of ten girls under 18 in that population has gone missing in the last ten years.
  
• You would correctly argue that there's no Wyoming statute requiring State police to treat missing white girls with more urgency than missing Native girls but I don't think its reasonable to conclude that therefore there's no evidence of institutionalized racism to be discovered in the difference.
  
• If I was a high school teacher and a student asked me to explain the discrepancies between Petito's case and these hundreds of cases, I think I would be hard-pressed not to discuss the history of American Indian reservations as racist institutions and how that legacy of segregation, poverty, dual-classed citizenship, etc. plays a role in that discrepancy.  That would definitely be teaching about systemic racism in Wyoming but it would have nothing to do with CRT.  Nevertheless, FOX News viewers would call that teaching CRT.
  

-->@oromagi

Teaching (high school) children that racism is complex, changing, and subtle is not teaching Critical Race Theory.

That's not what I asked because you didn't address the latter portion of my question. Here is my question again:

• Are schools currently promoting curriculum material teaching that racism and disparate racial outcomes are the result of complex, changing, and often subtle social and institutional dynamics, rather than explicit and intentional prejudices of individuals?
  

A yes or no would be helpful.

• Your definition of SYSTEMIC RACISM is explicitly racist instructions in government statute which fails to account for most of what Americans mean when they talk about systemic racism.
  

No, I think many high school teachers teach racism is the result of intentional individual prejudice as well as complex and subtle social dynamics.

Slightly true the war on drugs made a bunch of racist laws.

Critical Race theory is one of the underpinning social theories about systemic racism.

That is not being taught.

What is being taught, from what I can see, is a deeper and more specific set of history about historical racism, the impacts of racism; how various groups have been historically oppressed, which is more “history” than “critical race theory”.

I am not ultimately arguing about whether public schools are "teaching Critical Race Theory" or not.   While I believe they are to a certain degree as shown by my questions, we could go back and forth continually trying to argue that point. But that's what you want, isn't it? Because there is perhaps some truth in your argument that schools, on a large scale at least, are not "teaching Critical Race Theory" as a theory in total.

[Critical Race] Theory soon stood in for anything resembling an examination of America’s history with race. Conservatives would boil it down further: Critical race theory taught Americans to hate America. Today, across the country, school curricula and workplace trainings include materials that defenders and opponents alike insist are inspired by critical race theory but that academic critical race theorists do not characterize as such.

Fox News gave only passing thought to critical race theory until last year. .... after Derek Chauvin was captured on video kneeling on George Floyd’s neck for more than nine minutes, and the United States became awash in anti-racist reading lists—some of which included books and articles that discussed critical race theory—Fox suddenly took a great interest in the idea. It became the latest in a long line of racialized topics (affirmative action perhaps being the most prominent) that the network has jumped on. Since June 5, 2020, the phrase has been invoked during 150 broadcasts.

But you and I both know that teachers are engaged in praxis that is founded upon the ideology of CRT.

So even if they are not teaching the particulars of the theory, they are encouraging students to reflect in order to raise consciousness of their oppressed existence.

This consciousness raising serves as a revolutionary call to action to further identify systems of oppression in order to dismantle them.

So placing the focus of the argument on whether schools are "teaching CRT" is simply a distraction of definitions

while students are continually being subjected to critical praxis, turning them into little social justice revolutionaries. But you already knew that, didn't you?

If FOX News had not been misinforming you for the past year, you would not now be trying to argue that anti-racist classroom conversation are "engaged in praxis that founded upon the ideology of CRT." FOX News taught you that- not law professors and certainly not classroom observation.

So placing the focus of the argument on whether schools are "teaching CRT" is simply a distraction of definitions

Beg pardon but I firmly believe there's no point in debating until both sides are in agreement on definitions. Definitions are an essential pre-requisite and never a distraction because the debate can't be truly engaged until definitions are resolved.

I don't read/watch Fox News so this accusation is completely baseless and untrue.

Then why are we still playing the game where you pretend that you don't understand exactly what I am talking about when I use specific terminology and phrases in this statement:

• "But you and I both know that teachers are engaged in praxis that is founded upon the ideology of CRT. So even if they are not teaching the particulars of the theory, they are encouraging students to reflect in order to raise consciousness of their oppressed existence. This consciousness raising serves as a revolutionary call to action to further identify systems of oppression in order to dismantle them."
  

if you can identify a different ideology or framework that would be a more plausible foundation than CRT for the above points that are currently being taught in public schools, I would be happy to hear it.

As the Atlantic Monthly article demonstrated, CRT did not exist in the American conversation until Fox News put it there last summer. FOX News is the origin point for your misconceptions about CRT, whether or not you know it.

• Raising children's consciousness about racism is not teaching the legal theory CRT, as you concede when you say "even if [teachers] are not teaching the particulars of [CRT]....". This is the point where where our disagreement ends since my argument is only that teachers are not teaching the particulars of CRT and so claiming as much is a fake, invented, false reason to pull your kids out of school.
  

Objections to raising a child's awareness on most any subject is a poor reason to pull your kids out of school.

Raising children's consciousness about racism is a necessary part of American learning. I don't know how you teach American history, society, literature, etc. without raising consciousness about racism in America.

I have no objection to teaching (high school) children how to identify the means of oppression and how to non-violently dismantle those mean.

I could not have been more clear on this, I don't know why you are pretending otherwise. I said:

"....you are mis-characterizing anti-racist speech as CRT."