On April 23, 2021, Max Sawicky published an article in the Loudoun Times-Mirror titled “Critical Race Theory Is Not What It’s Critics Suggest It Is”. Max Sawicky is considered a “Special to the Times-Mirror”, not sure what that means, but anyone that refers to himself as a “Social Justice Warlord” suggests to me that the article was written by someone with a very progressive belief system. Max Sawicky is an “Anti-Trumper” that refers to Trump supporters as the “Trumpist Mob”, and Black Lives Matter as “demonstrators”. Below are a few of Sawicky’s recent articles:
- How to Make Joe Biden’s Budget Better, Part I: Send Money Now!
- How to Make Joe Biden’s Budget Better Part II: Public Investment and the Green New Deal — Do Everything!
- To Curb This Crisis, Biden Needs to Spend Big—And Fast. Here Are 4 Immediate Priorities.
- Bitches Get Shit Done (referring to Nancy Pelosi)
- Why Socialists Should Support the Democratic Ticket in November
While Sawicky has written many, more articles, I thought the titles of these (5) articles seem to summarize Sawicky’s moral compass: Spend the country into oblivion & keep spending, women are “bitches”, and he’s a full blown Socialist. This ladies and gentlemen, is the Loudoun Times-Mirror.
Below is the “article” Max wrote for the Loudoun Times-Mirror, with some comments from PACT. I don’t fault Max for his woefully researched article and his attempt to dispel the myth that CRT is not being taught in LCPS. I think the blame for such a shoddy, and insulting article lies at the feet of the Loudoun Times-Mirror. It’s no secret that the Loudoun Times-Mirror is an extension of the radical left, LCPS, LCBS, and the NAACP, and publishing an article like this only underscores who they really are.
Sawicky: Critical Race Theory is not what its critics suggest it is
- By Max B. Sawicky, Special to the Times-Mirror Apr 22, 2021 Updated 1 hr ago
So I read here that the April 8 meeting of the Loudoun County School Board was a reboot of “The House of Flying Daggers.” My caution to all is that for the sake of winning attention, folks often make too much out of too little. That seems to be the case in the matter of Critical Race Theory (CRT). Some parents see indoctrination, radical ideology and abuse of students.
Remember when we were at risk of invasion by caravans of illegal immigrants? Or when the Zika virus was going to kill everybody? When Obama was going to take away all the guns? When the left-wing Antifa sacked the Capitol?
By contrast, evidence of an actual pandemic that has killed over half a million Americans was pooh-poohed for weeks, and by many, still. Consider your sources, people.
Two key questions are: Just what is Critical Race Theory, and is it being taught in Loudoun County Public Schools? What follows is a short guide for the perplexed.
Critical Race Theory began as a movement in schools of law. Delving into that literature should make it clear that it is w-a-a-y over the heads of high school students, most lay persons and probably me as well. It is borderline ridiculous to imagine it being taught in any depth in our schools. That aside, I will try to explain it in a nutshell.
- PACT Comment: This is Sawicky’s answer to what Critical Race Theory is, that’s it? See the tone he sets? You’re too stupid to understand Critical Race Theory. This guy has a Phd. in Economics & a BA In English and believes it’s too deep for him as well. Little does he realize that Marxism and the Communist Manifesto is taught in schools. Here’s a little help Max
Contrary to some anguished reports, CRT is not about you, or about white people, so relax! Nobody is accusing you of anything. It’s about the waters in which we all swim. In these waters, racial disparities in income, wealth, employment, housing, and education have been well-documented.
- PACT Comment: So just like that, Max says CRT has nothing to do with white people, or is “not about you”. You have to ask yourself, what “research” did Max do for this article? When LCPS is hyper-focused on lessons around “whiteness”, “white privilege”, or “implicit bias”, is this not directed towards white people and “about you”? Then there’s “systemic racism” and “institutional racism”. Need these defined? I wonder if he ever heard of Ibram Kendi or Robin DiAngelo?
The Urban Institute in Washington, D.C., used to run experiments where they sent white and black individuals, alike in all other respects, to apply for jobs. Clear differences in receptivity were recorded to the disadvantage of black applicants. By the same token, clear racial differences in wages are observed, after factoring out other likely causes of wage levels such as education, age, and educational credentials.
I did a radio interview years ago with Bill O’Reilly and made this point. He blurted out, “I don’t believe it!” That wasn’t an argument, Bill-O. We all know about that river in Egypt.
CRT is about how institutions, general patterns of behavior, the process of making law itself, result in racial disparities in wealth, income, wages, and other things that matter. This is what is meant by white supremacy. White privilege just refers to those holding the long end of the stick. CRT is not about ungenerous, ignorant opinions about black people held by some whites.
- PACT Comment: Hold the the phone, just (3) paragraphs above, Max says CRT is not about white people. Now he states “CRT is about how institutions, general patterns of behavior, the process of making law itself, result in racial disparities in wealth, income, wages, and other things that matter. This is what is meant by white supremacy. White privilege just refers to those holding the long end of the stick.” Which group of people are directly related to “White Supremacy” and “White Privilege”? White people, but Max said CRT is not about white people. This is called double speak. CRT is aimed at ALL whites, not just white people that harbor ignorant beliefs.
The goal of CRT is to get past the obvious, now bygone displays of racism — whites only drinking fountains — to deep roots in the law that lead to inferior economic status for African Americans. The crime is what’s legal, in race as in money.
- PACT Comment: This is just silly, Max states “The goal of CRT is to get past the obvious, now bygone displays of racism — whites only drinking fountains — to deep roots in the law that lead to inferior economic status for African Americans.” The people pushing CRT are using racism from way back when as the pretense to insist racism is alive and thriving in today’s society, hence “systemic racism” and “institutional racism”.
Another hysterical claim is that by CRT, America (And you! Again!) is racist. That phraseology suggests a view of the U.S.A. as having no redeeming value. Everyone is deplorable. As a depiction of CRT, that is simply false — analogous to what the late Sen. Daniel Moynihan, in a different context, described as “Boob bait for Bubba.”
- PACT Comment: Once again, Max is not only wrong but he’s misleading the few who read Loudoun Times-Mirror. The most widely used phrases are “systemic racism”, “institutional racism”, and “implicit bias”, which are the foundation of CRT. Turn on your TV, watch the news, sports, or commercials and there they are.
It is true that CRT aims to analyze racist institutions, which it sees as ubiquitous. The inescapable truth of that is reflected in what I noted above: There is simply no other reasonable explanation for the disadvantaged economic and social status of African Americans and other minorities in the U.S.
- PACT Comment: Max Sawicky again contradicts his own story. He says above “There is simply no other reasonable explanation for the disadvantaged economic and social status of African Americans and other minorities in the U.S.” In comes those words again “systemic racism”, “institutional racism”, and “implicit bias”. Since the belief is that only white people can be racists, then who else could be responsible for “the disadvantaged economic and social status of African Americans”? But Max wrote that CRT is not about white people?
As the France quote at the top illustrates regarding wealth, a law can be blind on the surface to individual circumstances but still have implications for those subject to such circumstances. So too with race. Race-blind is not necessarily race-neutral. CRT aims to uncover the links between race-neutral law and racism-infected outcomes.
On the second question, is CRT being “taught?” When people say taught, they are worried about indoctrination. But a theory can be taught without students being told, “This is what you should believe.” One can learn about China without being converted to Confucianism.
- PACT Comment: You mean indoctrination like this: https://youtu.be/0bHrrZdFRPk ?
The county has extensive educational materials on racism. Should students not be taught about racism? Does racism not exist? Shouldn’t minority students be afforded a learning environment free of juvenile, racially motivated distractions? Who in good faith could object?
- PACT Comment: I don’t have the time or inclination to educate Max. He’s (71), no new tricks.
There would be nothing wrong with teaching about CRT, though it would not be easy to do well. Without doubt, I could find objectionable elements in the LCPS anti-racist curricula. Just as surely, there have been episodes in classrooms that I would find unfortunate. But these same risks apply no less to not teaching about racism. Every offensive episode stemming from anti-racist education has been mirrored in abuse from the opposite direction, ever since school integration began.
CRT is nothing but an effort to analyze how racism functions, not in the form of inter-personal beefs, but through social forces. It would be nice for everyone, me included, to learn more about it. So like I said, we can all relax. There is no good reason to vulgarize a legitimate academic subject into a personalized rebuke of multitudes of white folks. Everything is not about you.
- PACT Comment: We’re through with this guy. Oh, feel free to attack me on my grammar, no problem. But remember, I’m not the one with an BA in English. I’d expect better from someone like that, like citing sources, providing evidence and facts maybe? Even a dummy like me knows that facts and evidence matter. Next.