Christopher F. Rufo  ⚔️

Exactly the sort of thing I'm thinking of. But again, I'm only an expert on Twitter CRT. Not actual CRT. Differences exist, I'm sure. I just don't know how they look.

There are various aspects of and people writing within the continuum of Crit Race Theory such that its proponents will claim "That isn't Critical Race Theory!" when challenged on some aspect of it. When asked to define it, they lie and say: "It's just a way to address racism."

I don’t think those people are lying; they’re just undereducated on the subject and not qualified to discuss it at a high level

I'm talking about people who are educated on the subject. They know that it is activism, and are not interested in subjecting their ideology to rigorous interrogation. I do agree that the low-grade activists, the undereducated, do use the same line because it's an easy dodge.

Hm. It might well be a form of activism, but what exactly is wrong with scholarship being also political? As long as arguments are being made, I don’t see the problem. It seems disallowing “political” scholarship would itself be a political move insofar as it’d support status quo

What is wrong with scholarship being political??? There are valid arguments, and then there are fake arguments. Scholarship is traditionally concerned with truth, with increasing the breadth and accuracy of human knowledge. Promoting political hackery is not scholarship.

Critical Race Theory is explicit political hackery, not interested in truth or accuracy in its narratives, only in achieving political goals by promoting whatever narratives are required to do so. Critical Race Theorists are the Michael Moores of the academy, ie. partisan hacks.