Talk:Critical legal studies

Archives for this talk page:

<1>

, (new)

Sex ex x

On the value/disvalue of critical legal studies, I'll plead ignorance. But on the issue of "hostile environments", I'll give you this: I agree that there's nothing wrong with (consensual) sex. I disagree with the idea that the solution to puritanism is overexposure, and expecting everyone to be okay with that (edit: hence the consensual part - sex isn't just physical). No, sex is not sacred, but there really are some things that should not be present in the work place.

A case I remember (vaguely): some guy put up a Hustler (or something like that) calendar in a prominent part of the workplace. A woman who worked there requested that it be removed. The guy who put it up refused, and it of course lead to the usual "What, you don't like that? What are you, some kind of frigid bitch?" talk. First of all, I would be uncomfortable if someone put up a porno calendar in the office/workplace/what-have-you, and I'm a pretty voracious collector of porno. I have no interest in knowing the kinks of my co-workers. Nobody, man or woman, should have that forced on them.

The whole point of pornography is to sexualise a person to the point that that's all they are: a sexualisation (and I'm not talking about erotica here, I'm talking about porn). One gets off on that. Okay, cool. Men do it, women do it. It's not real. But it is a private thing, at least when it's that visceral. What does it say about a guy who puts that up and refuses to take it down, even if he doesn't start calling the sexuality of his accusers into question? He's basically putting up a sign saying "I like titties; women are for titties". I mean, what message exactly is one trying to send, if not that? And how is that anything but hostile? You can plead ignorance, but, come on, you'd have to be pretty fuckin' stupid.

And if he does start putting pressure on the woman who asks him to take it down? And what if all the other men gang up with him and ostracize this woman for her opinion? "Nothing wrong with that, you're just a prude," is the polite defence, I suppose. Well fuck that, if I'm a prude or a slut is none of anyone elses business, and it shouldn't be a factor in the workplace. That's peer pressure. That is a hostile environment. The golden rule is "don't be a dick". Putting porn up at the office, and ganging up on the woman who doesn't like it, is being a dick.

Now, that case was just something I pulled from memory, and I did extrapolate a touch from there. But while I don't think you would advocate putting porno mag clippings up around the cubicle, you can see why I'd be a bit wary when someone puts hostile environment in scare quotes. I get it. There are definitely people who exploit this. There are men who have done absolutely nothing, and they get railroaded on trumped up accusations, or simple misunderstandings. There IS a grey area, and my illustration above is rather clear cut (at least to me). But greyness is true of most legal conflicts. What do you suggest is the alternative here, if not legal recourse? If the company/business refuses to deal with, or all out ignores the guy who's pulling this? I don't mean to sound hostile with that, I'm seriously curious how you'd have someone deal with the above situation.

Whether or not companies should pay out a bazillion dollars is another issue entirely. But there is such a thing as a hostile work environment. It's much more frequent than we'd like to believe in our enlightened society. -- Yossarian^{The Man from the USSR} 01:00, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Most decidedly seconded. I’m sorry, ListenerX—I’m sure there are “hostile environment” harassment claims that are unwarranted, but the idea that these cases are, QED, unreasonable puritanical feminazi contrivances is (pardon me for saying so) complete bullshit. If somebody’s being ostracized and demeaned in their workplace because of their gender, and their employer refuses to act, they deserve legal recourse. Period. Christian scientist (talk) 01:34, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Yossarian, I suggest that you knock off attempts to impose your view of sexuality and smut (which sounds a lot like Andrea Dworkin's) on companies and their workers. I do not particularly appreciate people plastering smut all over the place (and I know several people who do that), but that is not my business.

It is regrettable if someone's co-workers should become hostile to them, but whyever should the law butt in solely on account of such hostility appearing to be on account of something sexual (I stress appearing, because that is one of the major problems with the hostile environment law — these situations are highly subjective), unless the State is holding to a particular view of sexuality and imposing it?

As to my solution for the problem: It is the same one, and the only one, currently employed to deal with hostility at work when there are no politically fashionable factors involved. If you are experiencing hostility from co-workers and the company will not deal with it, you can quit your job.

Christian scientist, laying aside the merits of the law's intent and/or practice for a second, there is also the way these laws were made: written by a woman who was never elected to any legislative office and brought in by judges with no constitutional authority to legislate. I do not blame the judges, who acted within the letter of the law, but instead the lawyers who violated its spirit.

Also, I did not say "feminazi;" I said "communist." Slight difference. ListenerX^TalkerX 04:46, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

If you are experiencing hostility from co-workers and the company will not deal with it, you can quit your job. —ListenerX

But shouldn't you be able to feel safe in your own workplace? Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 04:51, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Paranoid people do not feel safe at all. In the U.S. at present, a very puritanical attitude is taken toward sex, which can make such a paranoid person seem "reasonable." Radical feminists are known to boost the "cause" of people whose paranoia centers around sex. ListenerX^TalkerX 04:57, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Now you're just being an asshole. If you deny sexual harassment in the workplace is a real issue, you're a fucking nutcase. ħuman 05:19, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

As I said above, I have no problem with laws against quid pro quo harassment, since they are much more objective. I also recognize that having a hostile environment at work can be a problem, but the way these laws deal with it and the way they were brought in are both unacceptable. ListenerX^TalkerX 05:23, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for not taking my profanity personally. I appreciate that, I was just pissed off, and I'm glad you didn't let that derail the conversation. ħuman 06:46, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Dammit, don't be going all rational on me like that! That's just poor form, sir. I got the impression that you didn't think that hostile work places were a real problem. Apologies for misunderstanding, at least on my part. Anyway: Andrea and I are pretty much not on speaking terms, if we ever were. I really have no problem with porn. Sexualising someone isn't necessarily a bad thing; it'd be pretty hard to have sex without that factor. Whacking off to porn is not the cause of society's problems, as many would have us think. I could write you an essay defending pornography, so let's leave Dworkin out of it, alright? Nor do I want to impose my opinion of "smut". I don't even think there really is such a thing as smut, in the negative sense of the word (unless it involves an unconsenting party, but that's pretty much my rule of thumb regarding "good" and "bad" sex). eDiT: What I'm saying is, porn isn't a bad thing, but rather that there's a time and a place, and it's not as clear cut as saying the guy didn't mean to offend someone with his tentacle rape manga pinups. Subjectivity is the whole problem. Porn means one thing to you and me, and another to someone else, and we can't dismiss the other opinion out of hand because it's "puritanical". edit 2, electric--: Actually, intent is the problem, and intent is subjective.

I agree with you that the state should not have a position on the morality of sex. A countrymen of mine said it best: "The government has no business in the bedrooms of the nation." But the bedrooms (semen crusted office chairs, if you will) of the nation and a place of work are two very different things. And this may be where we disagree: whether such a distinction exists. It would be wonderful if sexuality could be something more open in society, and I think one day it will. One day people will be able to put up porn in the office, and no one will care, and it won't be an issue. In a thousand years. Perhaps two. And it may make me sound like a PC policeman, but I really do think the feelings of others count, and that it contributes to running an efficient workplace, or even society. There should be a better protection for women than "you're free to quit, biyotch." You may have a point, that the laws and processes in place (at least in the States) are flawed, but I don't think the inherent idea is wrong. There has to be something in place to even the playing field, and to deal with these issues fairly. Women have come a long way in the past hundred years, but sexism isn't going to go away without some sort of concerted effort. It's all well and good to say that if someone is objectionable, society will eventually boycott them, but that's on awfully optimistic view, in my opinion. I guess this just comes down to a difference of opinion on collective rights and individual rights. -- Yossarian^{The Man from the USSR} 06:02, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I do not enjoy porn that shows people who don't look happy. However, even the ones I don't like do not show "scars" or "bruises". Sadly, I do see pron that looks like junkies earning a fix. That make me sad, and of course, makes my erection a flaccid version of its former self (sorry!) So I click on to better porn. People enjoying posing nekkid. ħuman 07:51, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

(undent)Actually, saying a concerted effort will wipe out sexism is a pretty overly optimistic thing to say, too, but a man can dream. --Yossie^{Spring in Fialta} 06:18, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I do not subscribe to the whole "people have a right not to be offended" thing, even if restricted to certain grounds; freedom of speech is useless if you do not have carte blanche to offend people with it.

I also do not subscribe to the idea that smut "sexualizes" or "objectifies" people "to the point that that's all they are;" it is just pictures of people without their clothes on, perhaps in strange poses. If this somehow "reduces" people, you could say the same thing about any photographic advertisement.

"...we can't dismiss the other opinion out of hand because it's "puritanical"." Watch me. Watch the Wiki.

"One day people will be able to put up porn in the office, and no one will care, and it won't be an issue. In a thousand years." Ah, the old "after the revolution" defense.

As to making a better work environment for women, I think the market can do most of the work: a company that has a reputation of providing a good work environment (something that companies have a right to do even without sexual harassment laws) can get the benefit of the best of the female work-force. But whatever the market is capable of, it is quite difficult to make a highly abstract problem of this sort go away by passing laws against it. ListenerX^TalkerX 06:28, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I am curious as to where you got "the ends justify the means" (where your external link led to) from "in a thousand years, maybe". Yossarian was merely drawing a hypothesis from an observation, saying "eventually, so and so". ("Eventually" by the way, is the same argument your making in favor of letting "the market" handle it—e.g. eventually the free market will get around to fixing it.) Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 06:45, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I was knocking communists who claim that certain measures are "temporary" until the Fabulous Communist Utopia is brought in, but the measures turn out to be permanent. ListenerX^TalkerX 06:52, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

That argument, by the way, really gets on my tits. "Rather than using every tool at our disposal to try and improve people's lives, we decided to sit around and let nature take its course. I mean, eventually it'll get around to fixing itself. I'm sure your grandchildren will thank us for our genius. (You're generation's still screwed, though.)" Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 06:45, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

A lot of people have thought it a bad idea not to cast all other concerns to the wind in pursuit of a certain goal. They have tended to be immoderate fools who promise heaven and deliver hell. ListenerX^TalkerX 06:49, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Are we "casting all other concerns to the wind"? That we don't know all the potential consequences of a specific government action is an argument for caution, not an argument for throwing our hands up in the air and waiting for the problem fix itself. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 07:08, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and I find the argument that "bad things might happen if we do something, so let's do nothing", to be pretty lacking when when weighed against "bad things are happening, so we ought to do something". Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 07:08, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Reds are very single-minded that way. With the anti-smut ordinance its proponents were thumbing their nose at free speech and State neutrality. With the sexual harassment law the disregarded concerns were freedom of association, the freedom for companies to agree with workers and unions on whatever workplace policy they saw to be the best, etc. In both instances, democratic process was given short shrift.

As far as Marxist policy is concerned, the argument is more, "Bad things will happen if we listen to them, as they always have." On the other hand liberal laws have actually made accomplishments in this area. ListenerX^TalkerX 07:20, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Who are these "reds" you are so angry at? Also, have you ever studied Marxist analysis (there's a huge difference between "Marxist policy" and "Marxist analysis"), or do you just hate communists (like Jesus)? PS, there's a red under your bed! ħuman 07:44, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Way to ruin my Red-Under-His-Bed gag, Human! Now he won't be surprised. Listener, pretend you're surprised when Marx jumps out at you! And don't steal his beard. --_{sloqɯʎs puɐ suƃıs}uɐɪɹɐssoʎ 07:58, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Since we don't have a main article on Critical Race Theory yet

Not to cite things out of context, but an example of a quote I found quite remarkable is from a 2007 Critical Race Theory study (that I stumbled into just now):

Following others in the CRT tradition, therefore, the paper’s analysis concludes that the most dangerous form of ‘white supremacy’ is not the obvious and extreme fascistic posturing of small neo‐nazi groups, but rather the taken‐for‐granted routine privileging of white interests that goes unremarked in the political mainstream.

I post this here mainly as a source dump for future writing, though I believe it goes without saying that the above conclusion is one of significant controversy. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 16:40, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm a new poster, and I'd like to raise an issue with one of the most controversial yet passive of the sections in this article, which reads: "The movement has been accused of having a more-than-slight anti-Semitic streak." There is no citation to support this except to an popular book review by Judge Alex Kozinski, praising two law professors who, back in the 90s, rang some unnecessary alarm bells about "radicalism" in law schools (they are stultifying conservative, still, FYI, even if its ranks are filled with people who call themselves "liberal," including these two). Kozinski re-cites a cited line in Bell's extremely-well-labeled-as-fictional allegory, "The Chronicle of the Space Traders," for his evidence that Bell--and CLS/CRT--is anti-Semitic. Anyone else reading that story would be hard-pressed to read the line that way, as the entire thesis (indeed, of all of Bell's late work) is that the US needs an oppressed minority to sustain its social structure, and so would have to find a way forward and might, as hard to believe as it might be, screw over Jewish people (again). Unpalatable to think about, perhaps, but it isn't anti-Semitic although Bell would be the first to admit it's anti-US. No one except for these three have ever called the CLS/CRT movement anti-Semitic--and, I guess, the poster of the RW article. In other words the accusation, based on hearsay and selectively stretched interpretations of obvious fiction, is thin if not transparent. The section on "Anti-Semitism" should be deleted or mightily rewritten to reflect that this accusation is coming from a dinky quarter, and has some logic problems.Michjenb (talk) 12:36, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Derrick Bell was not anti-semitic, period.

I continue to delete the section accusing CRT of anti-semitism and explained why in one post below, it keeps cropping back up. Derrick Bell discussed anti-semitism in relation to/as racism in another one of his creative essays, "The Rules For Racial Standing," which is in the book Faces at the Bottom of the Well, and it is blindingly clear where he stands. If whomever keeps shifting it back needs a reference, here, check out pages 121-2. https://uniteyouthdublin.files.wordpress.com/2015/01/facesatbottomofw00bellrich.pdf ^{— Unsigned, by: Michjenb / talk / contribs 17:56, 8 February 2018 (UTC)}

Strawman

This whole article is a bullshit strawman. — Oxyaena ^Harass 11:41, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Reevaluation

In light of the general ideological shift this wiki has undergone, I believe it only makes sense to begin reassessing this article. Oxyaena makes a point that this article is something of a strawman, nor does it contain many examples of the use of critical legal studies in the past decade or so. It behooves us to reevaluate this article and bring a leftist perspective to it. RoninMacbeth (talk) 16:33, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Agreed; this seems somewhere between tonedeaf and clueless. Critical Race Theory (page title?) is big in the news and the zeitgeist lately, with many people intentionally misunderstanding it, and I think RationalWiki doesn't currently offer a cogent understanding of it. I can't write in the style needed but I hope RW can provide a better primer. 92.3.79.4 (talk) 11:49, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

This article is a piece of shit. I vote in favor of burning it down and starting over. --73.232.146.130 (talk) 14:45, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

I would absolutely agree this article needs some serious rewriting. As it stands, it feels like it barely engages in the actual topic. It feels less like a critique and more like a complete misrepresentation. I’ve not studied law but I have studied other areas of critical theory in my classes. And I think it’s kind of silly to imply that it’s a wholesale rejection of the enlightenment, rationalism, objectivity, or whatever else. At its heart, I would consider it be an extension of the sceptical project that all of these concepts represent. It doesn’t say “we should stop Doing Science and Rationality”. It says, “what are we missing when we Do Science and Rationality?”. Much is made of the idea that critical theorists want to completely reject the concept of truth and just let marginalised people dictate the terms. Yet, most of the critical theory I’ve actually engaged in actually asks “what does it mean for our notions of truth that so many groups have been excluded from helping to define it?”. When one considers the real history of exclusion that, eg, people of colour have experienced, it seems reasonable to ask what we’re missing when so much of our understanding of reality was defined nigh-exclusively by (usually wealthy) white men. Now I’m not some kind of expert, I’m pretty bad at philosophy, and obvs legal stuff is not at all my area. And I’m absolutely not saying that critical theory devoid of flaws or immune to critique! What I am saying is that this just doesn’t feel like the authors have actually engaged in critical theory at any level deeper than finding damning quotes that sound like they’re saying Science Is Bad or whatever. As for critical legal theory specifically, again, not an expert, but to me it certainly seems reasonable to not just take our assumptions of The Law as gospel, and to actually investigate what it means for The Law when it’s so often been employed specifically to exclude certain groups of people. So, I’m not really here to offer any definitive answers or anything. I am merely suggesting that this article actually looks at this concept on a less superficial level. Thank you. 2001:8004:DC5:1ADD:C162:8D54:1ED1:7373 (talk) 03:27, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

And to be perfectly frank: if you have issues with the current American conservative panic over “critical race theory”, I would strongly encourage keeping those issues in mind when evaluating this article. 2001:8004:DC5:1ADD:C162:8D54:1ED1:7373 (talk) 03:37, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Full of clear misinformation.

A good chunk of this article was clearly written by a right-wing troll with no intent to understand what CLS is and no background in law. There isn't even the pretext of legitimacy, because most of it isn't even sourced. And the sources that exist, such as Pyle 1999, are absurd scare-pieces designed to portray the entire school of thought in as negative a way as possible.

There is no neutral discussion going on here. Whoever wrote this initially came to the table knowing nothing about CRT except what they heard on Fox News, with an intent to shut down all discussion. Mind-melted stuff.

Entire article should be deleted and written from scratch. This is doing nobody any good. And putting it under the "communist" category merely because it borrows some ideas from Marx's theories is a stretch, considering plenty of disciplines (like economics) borrow concepts from Marx as well. One does not need to be a communist to disagree with legal formalism.

I agree with parts of this and the above, and would note that the earliest bits of this talk page are from eleven years ago. While I don't think it's been written by a right-wing troll, it's more like it's not been developed so much as been updated with additions of disparate, extraneous body parts. It's a pretty off-putting source and word salad that achieves nothing but confusion. (@IAN4000 Please also remember to sign your comments with four ~s.) Kntai (talk) 08:31, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

The bulk of this article was written in 2009, so Fox News has nothing to do with it. This Wiki used to have a lot more of the libertarian / new Atheist crowd (and was a lot looser with sourcing) and my impression is that the article seems to come from someone editorializing in this direction. (Note that editorializing isn't an issue on RationalWiki, though.) It could use a more balanced and sourced update, I agree.

The problem with CLS is that, from what I can tell, it's kind of an "ivory tower" concept that, as far as I can tell, generally is not very well known outside academia, is probably past its academic peak (seems to have peaked in the 1980s based on sampling Google Scholar results), and is somewhat nebulous.

The only reason a small offshoot of CLS called "critical race theory" actually got attention in 2020 or so is that some of the CRT ideology was part of the background for the 1619 Project, which was published by the New York Times, and thus gained this offshoot more visibility. Since CRT checked many of the GOP boogieman boxes ("Ivory tower"? Check. "Far left"? Check. Black? Check.) it became a convenient thing to politicize for the Breitbart troll farm. (Never mind that no Republican politician seemed to know what the fuck it was about.) Else wise the whole concept would be obscure legal academics.

Note that I personally would keep CRT away from CLS since CLS has not been affected by current politics. (Indeed, a quick scan seems to indicate that the juiciest bits of the CLS story probably will involve Battles of Lots of Words in the 1980s at Harvard and other Ivy League law schools between the "crit" wonks and the Federalist Society wonks. Given that the later is still very influential today, it's obvious which side "won" the argument, for better or worse.) A CRT article could probably focus on the crank aspects of how it was politically misused which would be more on-target mission wise.

For CLS, a good rewrite therefore would require someone with a good law academia background, who is not very entrenched in ideology, and therefore can make an article that both describes the movement accurately and allows for both critics and proponents, on a subject that is kind of obscure, wonky, and old school. Good luck with that... PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 14:59, 7 October 2021 (UTC)