Impact of Critical Race Theory on Jury Perceptions – Threat to Civil Rights
As we journey through this often complex landscape of thoughts and considerations, we’ll delve deep into the intricacies of a subject making waves across the nation: Critical Race Theory and students who become jurors. Many argue that critical race theory is important for social justice and exposing racial inequality.
Others contend that it’s a source of tension and even, potentially, a civil rights violation. But is it poisoning juries to hold prejudices against white individuals? A core element is that earning things via merit is white patriarchy.
To Critical Race Theorists, people don’t earn things; they are simply victims or oppressors in permanent racial hierarchies (with black people at the bottom in permanent slavery.) Since Asians are successful, they are generally treated as “oppressors,” too, depending on your “teacher.” This is their law; to them, it’s no theory. (CRT racial inequality teachers can make over $100k per year peddling CRT in most parts of the country.)
We will show how implementing Critical Race Theory on a widespread scale could potentially instill bias injuries. Even if you attend a school of law, words like “white privilege” are accepted as accurate. If you fight back, you will be canceled and possibly face an interrogation by administrators to make sure you condemn white people enough. At least, we hear privately from many students trying to get ahead.
The Slippery Slope of Blaming Gene Pools for Racial Inequality
We’re going to take you through the potential dangers, the areas of concern, and why some folks are pointing fingers at CRT for allegedly promoting racism against white individuals. It’s a delicate and sensitive subject, but we must have these discussions with respect and understanding at their center.
- Understanding the basics of CRT
- Exploring the implications of CRT on Jury’s perception
- Why some believe CRT promotes racism against whites
With an open mind and a steadfast resolve, let’s dedicate ourselves to seeking the truth, informed clarity, and a deeper understanding of this contentious topic. Shall we delve in?
At first, the media said it was a conspiracy theory that CRT was indoctrinating kids, even though many of us knew that was a lie. Then, the NEA head finally came out and admitted it is DEMANDING that anti-white hate, couched as “Critical Race Theory,” be forced on public school children. Educators say their version is the natural, racist history of this country and downplay that they call white children “privileged” and “oppressors.”
They say the law and everything about America is designed to keep black people down. To them, black people can do no wrong, and if they are accused of being bad students or breaking a law, you are a racist for saying it. Their interests seem to be in promoting racial division to make sure no black person will ever vote Republican, say many school teachers who wish to remain anonymous for fear of retaliation by the NEA or local teacher’s unions.
According to many parents, including black parents, teachers are telling black kids they are “oppressed” and have zero chance at success without forced “equity” by the democrat party’s instrumentalities, aka public schools and universities, as well as administrative agencies (SEIU, etc.)
They want all students thoroughly indoctrinated in anti-white hate, especially in the wake of January 6, which CNN and other government-influenced media have told them was a white racist attempt to take over the country.
“As we head into college application and selection season, we need to get parents, in particular, to focus on CRT that will be forced on their kids.” (Source, NY Post.)
Watch RACIST Lecture on Critical Race Theory to White Crowd
Democrat Party View
According to leftists and many national teacher’s unions, Critical Race Theory (CRT), at its core, is an academic movement that seeks to examine social, cultural, and legal issues as they relate to race and racism. To them, it’s a subject that divides opinion only if you are suffering from “white rage,” “white fragility,” or are a “Karen,” etc.
They use insults and peer pressure to force their “religion” since they think it intrigues young minds and provokes intense debate. There is nothing wrong with telling white kids their entire gene pool is racist and oppressive. There is nothing wrong with telling black kids they are permanent victims of the “white man,” either.
Average White Person’s General View?
To many of the so-called irredeemable “oppressors” (white people), CRT is nothing more than Cultural Marxism. They say it is a hidden new law designed to treat whites the same way the Germans treated Jews in Nazi Germany. In defense, Democrat-run Google and its Wikipedia claim that using the terms “Cultural Marxism” is anti-Semitic. So, if you mention it, you, too, are an anti-Jewish “racist.” Whatever you call it, most white people who know what it is call it state-mandated hate.
Still, there are many so-called “self-hating white people,” particularly in university teaching positions, who think we need to exterminate the white race or breed white people out of existence. They understand that family members of democrats have created entire public school curriculums and stand to make millions from peddling their hateful propaganda on school children, and they are pissed. They say it violates civil rights law, and with newly graduated judges, they have zero faith they will uphold the law, especially if they are in Washington, DC.
It’s no secret among lawyers that DC juries have no love for white republican males. If that weren’t the case, the defendants of January 6 would not have been trying to get a change of venue from the very beginning. The law of the land is that DC will give whites no chance; at least, that is the idea.
They know that CRT, in its practice and function, EXACTLY judges people by skin color and not the content of their character. But to them, it’s not enough for Americans to be equal in opportunity; they think the white man must “give up the benefits” of being white. And many academics and judges who vote into office get to decide the penalty of being white at whim; that’s their star chamber law.
Many whites argue that with Stasi-style K-12 and Marxist university professor reinforcement, many young adults and future judges now have received this indoctrination against whites (intersectionalism, or another catchy name, etc.), predominantly white males, as the ENEMY. Today, we’ll focus firmly on the implications of this theory when it comes to our justice system, specifically an African American jury’s role after thorough CRT indoctrination.
“Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere… Whatever affects one directly, impacts all indirectly.” – Martin Luther King Jr.
You may be wondering what Critical Race Theory (CRT) is at its core. It’s an academic concept that emerged in the United States in the 1980s and is rooted in critical theory. A single individual did not create it but developed it through the contributions of various far-left “scholars,” including Derrick Bell, Kimberlé Crenshaw, Richard Delgado, and others who lean far-far left.
Kimberlé Crenshaw, one of the key figures in the development of CRT, is often associated with its creation. It essentially suggests that racism is a systemic issue insidiously integrated into our society’s structures and institutions rather than simply individual prejudice or bias.
In other words, even if blacks run everything, the system still favors whites unless minorities take action to be anti-white, according to the many whites terrified to speak lest they lose their job, especially government employees. They pointed to the media-created George Floyd fiasco and declared this is “systemic racism.” And because they said it, it was automatically true until Musk destroyed their “consensus.”
Riots ensued, and the push for CRT indoctrination pushed full steam ahead for our new “woke” military and federal workers. Mandatory “racial sensitivity” training, aka how to humiliate white people and shame them for merely existing – classes began, and of course, military recruiting ceased. (After all, you won’t get promoted based on merit, especially whites, so what’s the point?) So we know these new woke, anecdotally, government-mandated, “anti-white” policies are hurting US national security.
But how does this relate to juries, you might ask? When CRT is applied to a jury setting, it can affect the perceived objectivity and impartiality with which the jury approaches a case. This is particularly true when that case involves races, ethnicities, or aspects of culture.
Implications for White Individuals Before a Hostile, CRT Indoctrinated Jury?
While CRT aims to investigate and challenge societal systems, critics argue that it indiscriminately paints a negative image of white individuals -irredeemably racist, aka YOUR ENEMY. They contend it could fuel tension and hatred towards white people and bypass the fundamental principle that every person should be judged based on their actions, not on the color of their skin or presumed group privileges.
They suggest that if carried to extremes, CRT can lead juries to approach a white defendant or witness with a set of preconceived notions based on their perceived role in systemic racism rather than the facts of the case. This is a dangerously slippery slope, some argue, wherein it becomes harder to ensure a truly fair trial. After all, if the defendant is white, they are already guilty as your “oppressor.” Sounds very Nazi German-like.
The Civil Rights Concern
Critics argue that an overemphasis on CRT in jury settings could potentially infringe civil rights. They contend this could constitute discrimination against white individuals who are entitled to equal protection and due process under the law.
In conclusion, the argument is that CRT not only challenges the perceived ethnicity-neutral framework of justice in the courtroom but may potentially undermine equal rights under the law.
It’s worth noting that these are largely theoretical arguments, and there is longstanding debate in academic and legal circles about the extent of CRT’s impact. It’s worth considering all perspectives in order to form a balanced view.
While it’s important to recognize and challenge systemic racism where it exists, critics worry that unchecked use of CRT could risk turning this essential task into a reason to alienate and discriminate against white individuals.
One such concern stems from the courtrooms where Critical Race Theory (CRT) can subtly reshape justice dynamics. As the jury is a fundamental brick in building justice, CRT’s potential influence on jurors warrants careful consideration.
In a vacuum where CRT is applied without imbalance, the purpose is to dismantle structural racism. However, in the context of the jury system, critics claim there can be potential pitfalls if inadequately managed.
Influence of CRT on the Jury System
The essence of a jury trial is that a group of ordinary people from various backgrounds will apply their collective reasoning to reach a fair verdict. If CRT influences this process, the fear is that it could engender biases against white defendants.
Consider a hypothetical situation where a white individual is on trial. If jurors, informed to view society and its structures through the lens of CRT, are predisposed to see white individuals as beneficiaries of systemic racism, it could cloud their judgment. It could lead to the presumption of guilt, not based on the evidence before them, but possibly on their racial perceptions. It could be construed, critics caution, as a form of reverse discrimination.
Concerns of Racial Prejudice
Think of it this way: if the application of CRT convinced a single juror that their duty was to address systemic racism rather than remain impartial, this could potentially sway the outcome of a trial. Critics argue this is problematic as it inserts prejudice and bias into a process that strives for impartiality and fairness.
The ultimate danger, these critics suggest, is that any unchecked and misapplied sociological theory, including CRT, could risk morphing into the problem it seeks to solve: systemic discrimination. In this case, it’s against white people, infringing their civil rights to a fair trial—it’s a civil rights violation.
In conclusion, while CRT has its place in tackling so-called “systemic racism” ( many say, a term made up by racist academics), the risks inherent in its misuse need to be identified and addressed, mainly when applied to the justice system, to guard against fostering any form of discrimination.
- NEA social justice trainer admits critical race theory in K-12 despite claims by union boss Becky Pringle