The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, which has been designated as a contentious topic.
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Education, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of education and education-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EducationWikipedia:WikiProject EducationTemplate:WikiProject Educationeducation
This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies
This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New York City-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York CityWikipedia:WikiProject New York CityTemplate:WikiProject New York CityNew York City
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of culture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CultureWikipedia:WikiProject CultureTemplate:WikiProject Cultureculture
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights
Foundation Against Intolerance and Racism is within the scope of WikiProject Disability. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.DisabilityWikipedia:WikiProject DisabilityTemplate:WikiProject DisabilityDisability
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Discrimination, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Discrimination on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DiscriminationWikipedia:WikiProject DiscriminationTemplate:WikiProject DiscriminationDiscrimination
Could somebody revert the recent IP vandalism to the article?
Here they updated the lead to say FAIR opposed antiracism initiatives that it calls "critical race theory" to antiracism initiatives rooted in critical race theory (CRT).[1] This has already been discussed on the talk page, the RS are very clear that FAIR calls things CRT (and is often wrong), we don't have RS saying the initiatives they oppose are rooted in CRT.
In the same edit, they added It instead favors rooting them in liberalism and provides such programming along those lines such as its own ethnic-studies curriculum based on liberal ideals instead of CRT. to the lead[2], before adding a reference in the next edit[3] to a New Yorker Article
The source does not actually support this, the closest thing it says is Under Bartning’s direction, FAIR created its own ethnic-studies curriculum, which was free for teachers and school districts to adapt.. It uses the word liberal twice, neither time attributing it to FAIR.
In addition, @ElrondPA's edit here[4] should be partially reverted (keeping the spelling fixes) per WP:OR, WP:DUE, and WP:FRINGE.
It changes In May 2023, FAIR sponsored a letter[1] to Springer Nature demanding they refuse to retract a methodologically flawed paper to ... demanding they refuse to retract an allegedly methodologically flawed paper (emphasis added)
To be clear, the paper in question has a retraction notice [5] explicitly saying The Publisher and the Editor-in-Chief have retracted this article due to noncompliance with our editorial policies around consent. The participants of the survey have not provided written informed consent to participate in scholarly research or to have their responses published in a peer reviewed article. Additionally, they have not provided consent to publish to have their data included in this article.
It also added the text though consent in a form similar to that of other published papers had been obtained.[2] This is citing a piece in UnHerd (a previous RSN discussion found it almost entirely undue opinion pieces at best, generally unreliable otherwise[6]), which lauds the WP:FRINGE activist J. Michael Bailey and cites the FRINGE group SEGM. The author's bio in the article links to her substack[7], where she lists her writing for other FRINGE groups like Genspect and contains dozens of articles of her misgendering and ranting about trans people. Of note, as noted in this article, FAIR has frequently worked with Genspect/SEGM and shares board members, they are hardly independent. An opinion piece citing WP:FRINGE groups to attack a scientific publisher and defend their members is not WP:DUE
Oh, it is in the same thread. Nevermind then. But, you don't need to add the "semi-edit request" because the page is not protected, so I've removed it for you. Myrealnamm (💬talk · ✏️contribs) at 15:22, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've trimmed the Unherd bit. If nothing else, "...though consent in a form similar to that of other published papers had been obtained" is unacceptably vague and loaded. Grayfell (talk) 19:30, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed these. As you said, neither source really stated that the group advocates for liberal ideals. And the uncritical use of the term CRT, when that can be used as a blanket term for any number of things, is something we should be careful not to put in wikivoice. Hist9600 (talk) 23:51, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"that it calls" in the lead is weasel wordy. I was in involved in discussions about this last year, but I don't believe we ever had a resolution. If FAIR has misattributed something that is not CRT as being CRT, then some source should clearly explain that. Do we have such a source? The Chalkbeat source cited in the lead simply says "FAIR has since lobbed criticism against CRT". The Valley News says "much of its content is dedicated to fighting critical race theory." None of the five sources cited in the lead suggest a misattribution of the term "CRT" by FAIR. Jweiss11 (talk) 02:23, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We are clearly attributing it to FAIR, so it would be more MOS:ALLEGED than weasel... but it's not even that. We are not casting doubt on this via word tricks, this is just a summary. The lead summarizes the body, and this is explained in detail in Foundation Against Intolerance and Racism#Opposition to critical race theory. Accepting FAIR's boutique definition of CRT would be a WP:PROFRINGE issue. They are opposing a specific version of CRT that is not similar to the mainstream definition of the term. To imply otherwise would be misleading. Grayfell (talk) 05:22, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Lancaster Online piece seems to be the only source that addresses the issue of FAIR's interpretation of the term "CRT". Is there anything else there? Jweiss11 (talk) 05:36, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Chalkbeat[8]: CRT has become a political flashpoint, dominating headlines and school board meetings ever since the Manhattan Institute’s Christopher Rufo claimed that CRT had infiltrated the federal government and public schools ... The education department maintains that CRT is not taught in the city’s public schools, but some parents disagree. ... Although CRT is not taught in NYC public schools, the city recently pledged multiple efforts to create a culturally responsive curriculum ... While Ansari learned more about CRT, she began to see that it was being used as a catchall term to define some of the work she had been doing for years to uplift marginalized voices. She saw criticisms of CRT as an attack on recent efforts to integrate anti-bias training and racial justice initiatives into education.
Washington Post[9]: The conservatives had taken office after a campaign focused on race and allegations that critical race theory had invaded the local schools, the most diverse in El Paso County. ... “The number one question that people are asking me: ‘Is critical race theory in our classrooms?’ ” Thomas told the school board at its Aug. 4 work session. It’s not, he said. “When people are conflating equity with critical race theory, they’re grossly mistaken.” ... Critical race theory, an academic construct that looks at the consequences of systemic racism, is not taught in K-12 classrooms, though the underlying ideas are part of lessons and policies in many places. And the equity findings that Knox-Miller was about to present were based on the idea that there was in fact systemic racism in the district.
The Guardian[10]: But alongside this reassessment, another American tradition re-emerged: a reactionary movement bent on reasserting a whitewashed American myth. These reactionary forces have taken aim at efforts to tell an honest version of American history and speak openly about racism by proposing laws in statehouses across the country that would ban the teaching of “critical race theory” ... While diversity training and the 1619 Project have been major targets, critical race theory has more recently become the watchword of the moral panic. Developed by Black legal scholars at Harvard in the 1980s, critical race theory is a mode of thinking that examines the ways in which racism was embedded into American law. ... But in the hands of the American right, critical race theory has morphed into an existential threat. ... A host of new organizations has also sprung up to spread the fear of critical race theory far and wide. The Foundation Against Intolerance & Racism (Fair) launched recently with an advisory board composed of anti-“woke” media figures and academics. The group is so far encouraging opposition to the grant program McConnell ... For some of these groups, critical race theory is just one of many “liberal” ideas they don’t want their children to learn. ... For others, it seems possible that attacking critical race theory is just a smokescreen for a bog standard conservative agenda. ... Whatever their motives, today’s reactionaries are picking up the mantle of generations of Americans who have fought to ensure that white children are taught a version of America’s past that is more hagiographic than historic. ... Laats suspects that the right is using “critical race theory” as a euphemism. “You can’t go to a school board and say you want to ban the idea that Black Lives Matter.
Valley News[11]: America’s school boards have once again become battlegrounds as a network of national groups stoke fears about “critical race theory,” a once-obscure academic theory turned by conservatives into a catch-all bogeyman signifying progressive school initiatives. ... “CRT is not a K-12 thing. It just isn’t,” said Darren Allen, a spokesperson for the Vermont-NEA, the state teachers union. “Critical race theory is not taught in K-12 schools,” echoed Maulucci, Scott’s press secretary. And indeed, critical race theory is an academic and legal framework dating back to the 1970s, whose debates have mostly played out in college seminars and academic journals. By and large, Vermont’s K-12 schools are not engaging with advanced graduate-level coursework. ... But like many of his peers, Castle also said “critical race theory” has been miscast by those who seek to combat it. The point, he said, is absolutely not to make white children feel guilt or shame. ... For Badams, the SAU 70 superintendent, the slippery way in which critical race theory has been defined by its opponents leaves schools with the impossible task of “disproving a negative.” ... The anti-critical race theory panic has been described by many education officials and critics on the left as an astroturfed movement, imported from well-funded right-wing organizations from outside.
Yes, but none of these sources state that FAIR has misconstrued what CRT is, much less explain how in any substantive way. Only the Guardian passage specifically refers to FAIR. If "that it refers to" is relying on those passages from those sources, then that's an OR/SYNTH. Jweiss11 (talk) 18:26, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This article is clearly written from the perspective that FAIR's activities are improper and, one might almost say, racist in and of themselves. The assumption is that anti-racist activities are desirable, and opposition to same cannot be well-intended. Why not write the article from the standpoint that FAIR promotes true equality, instead of the "woke" kind championed by schools and many corporations? 2600:8801:27:8700:9ED:EBD8:8001:4819 (talk) 15:55, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This article is almost too far gone. I can't remember if it was this or another page that started out as a hit-piece, but suffice to say regardless it's very POV.
This is one of the many many discussions over time on this page that justify the NPOV dispute label, as well as the above one (e.g., @Jweiss11's comments). AnExtraEditor (talk) 00:53, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
1. See the above discussions. 2. But also is the full archived history of the talk page not enough? (tongue in cheek) I mean I think just the existence of these numerous discussions should suffice.
3. The sheer size of this page is questionable; given it seems you've worked on this page a lot(?) and are quite devoted, are there areas that could be trimmed you think? Or split into another article? From my understanding, FAIR doesn't seem like such a notable organization to have this essay-esque article's worth of content.
Also perhaps this is a interest to the regular editors, but my understanding of FAIR is that gender stuff is less prominent for them than thier stated opposition to "race essentialism" and the discrimination of people based on immutable characteristics.
So the huge focus in this article on trans and gender issues seems disproportionate as well, from my understanding. Correct me if I'm wrong. AnExtraEditor (talk) 03:45, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree that one the problems with this article is an undue, disproportionate focus on trans and gender issues, which goes back to the creation of this article in early 2023. Another problem, which I've broached before, is the weasel wording of that it refers to as" or "what it calls" CRT. This implies, in wikivoice, that FAIR doesn't know what CRT is, or is describing something other than CRT to be CRT. Jweiss11 (talk) 04:00, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The sheer size of this page is questionable; given it seems you've worked on this page a lot(?) and are quite devoted, are there areas that could be trimmed you think? - yes, I'll get around to that this week. But that's not a NPOV issue.
also the lead is almost exclusively criticism lol. - RS are almost exclusively critical, we follow them. Also, WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY. Are there RS that aren't critical? What is missing from the lead that should be there / what's in the lead that shouldn't?
So the huge focus in this article on trans and gender issues seems disproportionate as well, from my understanding. Correct me if I'm wrong. - We report what RS do, when they often talk FAIR's focus on gender, we do. Even the WP:SPLC says they're a key voice amplifying anti-LGBTQ+ pseudoscience"
Another problem, which I've broached before, is the weasel wording of that it refers to as" or "what it calls" CRT. This implies, in wikivoice, that FAIR doesn't know what CRT is, or is describing something other than CRT to be CRT - Find a RS that says that CRT is being taught in elementary schools, as opposed to the multiple we do have that say ~"FAIR says CRT is being taught here, here's a bunch of experts who disagree". Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 04:17, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
1. thanks.
2. RS that have been used here perhaps. That's not surprising of course for an article that has multiple editors citing POV issues.
3. it's more likely the gender/trans focus represents editors focuses. Again, not surprising given editors decide what RSs to include. I'd say first things first, we trim the article way down and then we can address the POV issues from there.
4. This seems to be a case of talking past one another; I would gather FAIR isn't saying CRT is being taught in elementary schools lol - that's a university level theory. That wouldn't be charitable to their position or a charitable understanding of their statements. AnExtraEditor (talk) 04:29, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
feel free to add it back. the article hasn't changed since these concerns were brought up. I'm not super experienced with the tags, perhaps political POV is more appropriate. AnExtraEditor (talk) 01:41, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's a controversial subject, so of course there will always be people who disagree with any version of the article; but this feels like a "badge of shame" usage of the POV tag to me, which isn't really allowed and should therefore be kept off the article. None of the discussions have really focused on anything actionable - as acknowledged above, the article as it stands reflects the sources it contains; and nobody has actually presented any sources of comparable or higher quality that disagree. --Aquillion (talk) 09:57, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think Aquillion makes a good point here and this is one of the issues with POV tags. The tag should be placed and left with no suggestions for fixing the article. It is clear this article was started as an attack article (see the early talk page discussions). It was also toned down in the past. For example, the second paragraph in the lead is criticism from Chalkbeat New York. It might be a view worthy of the body but not for the second sentence/paragraph of the lead. Most of the lead is presented as the critics version of what they advocate. Impartial writing suggests we should present their views impartially then say what the critics are concerned about. Additionally, many of their positions are presented using negative terms/phrasing vs impartial ones. The harder part of fixing the article would be a good source review. Are we putting to much weight into partisan sources? Are we only emphasizing the negative content contained in otherwise neutral sources? Have sources been cherry picked for negativity? That was certainly true when the article was first written but I'm not sure if it's still true after the article got a lot of attention a while back. For someone so motivated it would be worth a look. Springee (talk) 12:44, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at some of the edits to the lead, Aquillion, I can see some issues with the addition you reverted here [12], but it does not appear to be a blog entry and does the source, Fulcrum.us, does appear to have a proper editorial policy etc [13]. The article in question is an interview with someone from FAIR so it seems like a very reasonable ABOUTSELF statement about the organization and would be appropriate for the lead of this article so long as it's sourcing is clear. I could see such a source being useful to present the views of the organization throughout the article, again with clear attribution. Springee (talk) 12:54, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
