Rethinking Critical Race Theory
I said last week that critical race theory was essential for learning American history as opposed to American mythology and that a piece on CRT would come another day.
That day is today.
If you’ve been privy to any news at all in the past few months, you’ve likely heard the term “critical race theory” being used in one context or another. Consider the following to be your one-stop-shop on CRT- what it is, what it's not, and why it’s such a hot button “issue” right now. The word issue is in quotes for reasons that will soon become clear.
Critical race theory is not some new concept concocted to shame white people and cause Americans to hate their country. It is an idea that has been around since the late 70s and early 80s. The core of CRT is that race is a social construct, and racism is something far more structural than individual prejudice, biases, and feelings. It proposes that racism is a central factor in how policies and legal decisions get made, leading to those decisions affecting a distinct group of people in a specific way. Redlining is a perfect example of this. In the 30s, the US government looked at areas composed of black inhabitants and decided to deem those places as financially risky. Then, banks refused to offer mortgages to black people because of risks that did not exist. These actions have had a domino effect throughout history, as redlining has led to less equity, lower rates of homeownership, and even shorter life spans for Black Americans.
There is a clear line between the racism of the past and the adversely affected people of the future. Critical race theory gives Americans a way to see that line, understand the context behind it, and know what we need to do differently to make sure such a line never needs to be drawn again. It is that simple. It is also something that has been twisted beyond belief by a group of people (something I will get to in a moment), which is why I wanted to give a concise example of what CRT is before I delved into anything else. Now that you have the truth, this is what CRT is not:
Marxist: No. This line of thought is recited from people as high up as state representatives, with Republican Rep. Matt Lockett of Kentucky saying, “CRT is simply identity-based Marxism, based solely on the color of one’s skin.” Incorrect. Attempting to smear things that would help make progress toward ending inequality by associating them with Marxism and/or Communism isn’t anything new. It’s something that happened to Martin Luther King Jr. during the peak of his leadership, which should set off alarm bells for anyone paying attention. It’s the same play out of the same playbook that has been used for decades. People today revere Martin Luther King Jr. for what he stood for, yet when he was alive, he was slandered and deemed a threat. Do not let people do the same with CRT.
Being taught in schools: again, no. It is an academic theory more than anything else and something that isn’t encountered until college or law school, if ever. If someone tells you that CRT is taught in K-12 schools, ask them where and watch them struggle to find any examples.
Racist: No, it’s not, and this line of thinking opens a genuinely interesting dialogue. Republicans have been railing against CRT for months now, deeming it racist- Texas Senator Ted Cruz even went as far to say that it’s “bigoted”, a “lie”, and “every bit as racist as a Klansmen in white sheets." The thing about this that is so interesting is the subtext, the in-between. I told you what CRT was at the beginning of this. It is American history taught with proper historical context, eliminating race blindness to understand how some policies affect certain people. By saying that accurate American history is as racist as a Klansman, Senator Cruz is technically correct.
Just not in the way he thinks he is.
Reading between the lines is necessary for things like this. When confronted with opposition to CRT, reverse engineering those arguments will usually lead you to a truth that someone wants to act like doesn’t exist. If learning actual US history will open the floodgates of racism maybe that’s because the US has engaged in centuries of discrimination towards minority groups. If learning actual US history will make it look like white people are the villains, maybe that’s because there are centuries of historical events that have seen white people involved in some heinous things. If Republicans are consistently opposed to something that would properly inform American citizens, maybe they don’t have the best interests of this country at heart like they say they do. Also, they’ve been a very unified front against CRT, consistently using past tactics against present-day nonissues. That kind of organization and textbook behavior would imply that they’ve done this before.
Republicans have engaged in culture wars for decades at this point. What they are doing today is not accidental or new. It’s a pattern that has been allowed to continue because people keep falling for it. In the past, it’s been things like sex education; something that was reviled as Communist in nature, something that would corrupt the youth if left unchecked and ruin America going forward. Today, of course, we know that to be ridiculous. Comprehensive sex education has helped lower the rates of STDs, unintended pregnancies, and abortions. This makes perfect sense, - the more people know a subject, the more they’re allowed to make informed opinions. They can navigate nuance, understand context, and effectively move through the world around them far better than if they were fed lies. The same goes for CRT, and by attacking it mercilessly Republicans have shown once again that they don’t want the America that they claim to want. We can only celebrate our differences if we understand what those differences are and where they came from, and they’ve made active efforts to suppress the learning required to do such a thing. They did it then, and they’re doing it again now.
CRT is a critical tool in understanding how this country came to be, both in the past and present day. As I expressed in last weeks’ article on Tulsa, concealing the truths of the past does nothing but ensure that creating a better future is more difficult than it needs to be. With this in mind, one should question the motives of people who attempt to codify that concealment into law.
There’s plenty more to talk about, plenty more dots to connect, plenty more context to give. We’ll continue doing so next week at 2 PM.
