“Teach truth that all human beings are created in the image of God. All people, regardless of race have equal value.”

this is not a realistic solution and wouldn’t work (as it hasn’t worked yet).

the whole “everyone should just be nice to each other” isn’t a solution for anything, it is just wishful thinking that won’t accomplish much.

“I watched this summer as a number of children with different skin color met in a park and just started playing with each other. They hadn’t met before and they hadn’t been indoctrinated about racism.”

Except eventually children will start self-segregating as they get older (usually about 3rd grade).

“therefore should be treated with dignity regardless of race or skin color.”

“should be” is not the same as “ will be“

The solution is simple, the application is hard. Teach truth that all human beings are created in the image of God. All people, regardless of race have equal value. Promote MLK JRs teaching where an individual is not judged on the basis of their skin color, but their character (loose translation). In fact, immerse yourself in some of Thomas Sowell’s writing on racism and race relations.

It certainly appears to me that what we are doing isn’t working but only creating more racism. I watched this summer as a number of children with different skin color met in a park and just started playing with each other. They hadn’t met before and they hadn’t been indoctrinated about racism. So they just played together and had an enjoyable time before it was time for each to go their own way. They didn’t know any better so they just enjoyed playing together.

Sure, we need to teach history and the evils of what racism has caused so that we don’t repeat the evils of previous generations. We also need to make sure that we teach that every single race has the ability to be racist. An honest study of history will certainly show that.

So back to the original statement of teaching and modeling the basic presupposition that every human being is of equal value and worth and therefore should be treated with dignity regardless of race or skin color.

But that is because Christianity in America has devolved into Pragmatism.

As a pragmatist, I must disagree with that.

Yes American Christianity has evolved into something that is not at all close to what Jesus taught. But it isn’t pragmatism.

“professional academics in legal studies that is not value-neutral but that explicitly takes sides.”

And that is not even close to saying:

“that impartiality before the Law is a bad concept”

She never said that. The paper you reference (and other articles in that same issue) is discussing a specific topic, violence towards women of color, and how the existing laws and policies are not helping those women. So she is suggesting an alternative to deal with that specific case (and possibly others that she mentioned.)

You re-interpreted her words and attributed claims to her that she never said.

“my fascist ideologies, like wanting the law to remain neutral.”

I didn’t claim you were fascist. I said you were the one portraying people who you disagree with as fascists.

You seem to have some reading comprehension issues. Would explain a lot about your comments.

Ken,

You have to read CRT literature before you can actually get to the philosophical “foundations” or gross lack thereof, that almost all CRT scholars agree on: materialism, Metaphysical anti-realism, epistemic skepticism and moral relativism. I mean, the questions that people and societies try to answer about life are pretty much always the same questions. The starting points for answering them however can be radically different. And, in being radically different, inevitable end at very different places/solutions. Clearly there is nothing wrong with trying to eliminate disparities, but if you really believe all disparities can be eliminated so long as we “try hard enough” then there are consequences of that mindset, usually very bad ones. Moreover, if you immanentize all forms of evil, then you must always find an oppressor from whom you can be liberated. Without sin or the devil to be liberated from, you will find someone or some group in society that is “the enemy.”

I am astounded that what used to be called “First Things” seem to matter so little to so many Christians today. But that is because Christianity in America has devolved into Pragmatism. It is about “what works” to make life more comfortable, not about what is true, or holy or beautiful. It is as if what most CRT scholars like Harris or Crenshaw or Matsuda actually believe a human person is just doesn’t matter. It is as if people who reject the notion of original sin will simply come to the same solution as we will even though they believe that human culture can literally be fixed through political means and we (or at least I) do not.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions. I am sure Hegel thought he was doing mankind (sorry, I mean personkind) a great favor, after all. And look what happened with that mess! Or, to quote Isaiah Berlin:

“If Kant had not beheaded the God of the theologians, Robespierre may not have beheaded the king.”

In a few years we may very well be saying “if Matsuda had not removed the blindfold from lady justice, then perhaps we would have far less people blindfolded in front of firing squads today.”

Ken,

Oh my goodness, Ken.

Okay, my fascist ideologies, like wanting the law to remain neutral.

Again Matsuda:

“As lawyers working in coalition, we are developing a theory of law taking sides, rather than law as value-neutral.” (1183)

This is the revolutionary theory of law that we are developing in coaltion, and I submit that it is both a theory of law we can only develop coalition, and that it is the only theory of law we can develop in coalition.” (1183)

So, let’s put two and two together: a theory of law is being worked out (this is 1991 mind you) by professional academics in legal studies that is not value-neutral but that explicitly takes sides.

Look, Ken, you have convinced me. All of a sudden, I have a renewed faith in the spirit of man. Sorry, I meant to say of the spirit of gender-neutral “person.” I am sure that nothing can go wrong if we reject the concept of impartiality before the law and instead use law as a value-laden tool to right our social ills. Then we will be more like God, who is a respecter of persons after all.

regards,
Anthony

cite me the page and her exact words where Matsuda claims “that impartiality before the Law is a bad concept”

“If you want to be judged not based on your actions or intentions before a court of law, but instead based on social features or identity, then I suppose that is your choice.”

Again, cite me the portion of the paper where Matsuda supports this notion.

You are twisting her words to say something she never said. then attempting to smear her by associating her with fascist ideologies, as well as attempting to associate anyone who disagrees with you in the same manner.

Ken,

Why does everything Marx talked about have to specifically do with one of the fundamental tenets of his theory, i.e. class struggle? Well, because it is a central feature of his theory that informs all other aspects of it, even if it is not directly mentioned everywhere. For example, everything Marx talked about (of significance) also presupposed religion was a projection of the mind, thus everything (of significance) he talked about presupposed that God doesn’t exist. That seems to matter, doesn’t it?

The paper is a partial exposition of Matsuda’s theory of law, which is a core tenet of Critical Race Theory, i.e., that impartiality before the Law is a bad concept (I won’t say “false,” because I don’t think Matsuda and others thing in terms of true or false). So, of course this has to do with CRT if it is defining a central tenet or value of CRT! I just don’t see why you are trying to distance Matsuda from CRT when it is a given fact that she is one of the founding scholars of CRT?

If you want to be judged not based on your actions or intentions before a court of law, but instead based on social features or identity, then I suppose that is your choice. To me, this idea of partiality in law based on social location sets up the initial conditions for kangaroo courts and show trials the likes of which we saw in the 1920’s in Russia and the 1930’s in Nuremberg Germany.

But, if tyranny is not an issue for you, then I guess it just isn’t an issue for you.

Thanks,
Anthony

What is your solution for addressing racism?