"You have still not demonstrated any understanding of what CRT teaches. At all, even after multiple requests. Its because you don't understand it."
I wonder sometimes why people cannot carry on a conversation without insults on the internet. I've pretty much settled on the fact that the person doing the insulting is insecure in their own convictions and terrified that somebody else will call them on it.
CRT examines why black people are more likely to die by firearm, regardless of race or who pulled the trigger, why black women are 4x more likely than white women to suffer domestic abuse, why the prisons are overwhelmingly POC, etc."
Maybe you simply phrased that inelegantly, but CRT doesn't "examine" anything. CRT is a paradim which provides a set of assumptions (axioms is probably too strong a word) that the proponent may use in order to explain questions like those.
"These are important questions to ask, and that is what CRT aims to teach students to ask."
Yes, they are important questions to ask, but you don't need CRT to ask them; we've been asking ourselves those kind of questions for fifty years, before CRT was even a glimmer in Dr. Bell's eye. In fact, an CRT-centric approach may very well lead one to the wrong conclusion, because since CRT asserts that racism is innate and perpetrated by the majority race for tangible benefit, it would naturally assume that the answers to those questions are due to racism. This may or may not be true.
Now, before you light your hair on fire again, be advised that I'm a consulting data scientist who has worked to answer problems like these for various state governments for a decade, particularly in crime and sentencing. So your examples are right in my wheelhouse; so, I'm going to give you an example of how a dispassionate look at data (rather than a CRT centric view) gives you the right answer as opposed to the wrong answer.
We were asked a few years ago by the Judiciary of a state government to analyze sentencing. Seems some activists had been accusing the State of giving longer sentences to black perps than white perps; and the State wanted to know if they had a real problem or not. (READ: "Do I have racist judges on my bench?" is the unspoken question they wanted answered.)
Sentencing is complex. A judge gives a sentence based on sentencing guidelines which are often very broad, allowing him or her latitude to mix number of years, years of probation, community service, fines, etc., tailoring a sentence as he or she sees fit. And how they sentence depends also on a number of variables, such as priors of course, but things like work history, financial resources, age, health, dependents, even educational level can come into play. Sometimes it's more art than science.
So, we built a model which normalized as many variables as we could, and ran it against 5 or 7 years of their sentencing database. Our "worldview" was not CRT, but the data; we go where the data takes us, without preconceptions. And lo and behold, it really didn't matter how we tweaked the model, we kept coming up with a discrepacy of 7% to 12% black more severe than white. The State did in fact have a problem; then they asked us to recommend a solution. That meant we had to understand the WHY; "racist judges" was only one possibility.
Well, since we weren't CRT-propagandized, we didn't assume that the judges were racists; in fact, when we split apart the JUDGES by race in our model and analyzed judges separately, we weren't able to find any discrepancies based on race; the minority judges were just as overly harsh as the white judges were. (I doubt that surprises you, if you're really as up on these sorts of matters as you claim to be.)
Anyway, either they were all racists, or something else was going on. Well, we interviewed a few judges, showed them our data, they were all universally disappointed in themselves, to be blunt. But they did tell us what the problem was --- seems it was very difficult for them to find similar cases and see what other judges had done. THey felt like they were often operating out of ignorance, and because the sentencing guidelines were so broad, there was unconscious bias rearing its ugly head. (I doubt that surprises you either.)
OK. So the problem was two-fold. There was an innate bias aginst black perps that ALL the judges had, but it wasn't intentional --- it was ignorance. The solution was to build a application which made it easy for a judge to pull up similar cases with similar variables -- exclusive of race -- so they could see how their colleages were sentencing. For lack of a better term, we started "crowdsourcing" the sentences, in a manner of speaking.
We went back in a year and analyzied a years worth of data in the database against our model. Problem solved.
"You're ignorance is staggering."
Is it? I am very confident that I know more about these problems than you do, and and I can tell you straight up that if you approach a problem like this assuming racist ""intent**, you'll conclude its due to racist intent. If the only tool you have in your bag is a hammer, every problem will look like a nail.
We have a lot of similar problems in this country, but my own experience tells me that the more common explanation is ignorance rather than intentional racism, and certainly not the desire for the majority race to gain advantage. So no, I am not going to agree that a cynical framework that insists that racism is innate and intentionally perpetrated by white people will yield an accurate picture of social dynamic in America. We are too diverse and besides, it looks like we'll marry ourselves out of the problem in a couple of generations anyway. :-)
https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2017/05/18/1-trends-and-patterns-in-intermarriage/
That said, I *do* agree with CRT educators that there is a dearth of conversations between majority and minorities that would be valuable in bridging racial divides, and there is some value in the perspectives the offer. However, IMHO, the notion that racism is definitionally innate makes it far to cynical a world view to expose schoolchildren to.
