Critical Race Theory

The Dichotomy is a blog seeking to inform readers on the opposing sides of current complex social and cultural issues. Joshua P. R. John is an undergraduate Philosophy, Politics, Economics student at the University of Maryland.

Header


The conversation around critical race theory (CRT) instruction and its value in the American classroom is a new and hot button debate increasingly discussed in political and academic circles. Stirring the controversy most recently was the Florida State Board of Education’s unanimous vote to ban all classroom instruction related to critical race theory. An academic discipline with roots in critical legal theory, critical race theory has been studied and developed in institutions of higher education for over 40 years. Activists and advocates of CRT instruction claim that the theory is essential to understanding roots of racism and white supremacy in Western institutions. Critics and skeptics, however, argue that it is not founded in empiricism or reason and additionally paints America in a negative, misleading light.

Currently, legislation regarding CRT instruction has been passed in five states with many more considering taking similar action. So what is the big deal around critical race theory? Why does it matter and how are people arriving at drastically different and seemingly contradictory conclusions? To answer these questions, we must first seek answers to more fundamental ones:

What exactly is critical race theory? What does CRT teach?

As described by Richard Delgado, one of the founders of the movement, in his book Critical Race Theory: An Introduction, critical race theory is a movement composed of activists and scholars that seek to confront the classical approach to racial justice and study how the social construct of race intersects with the law. CRT scholars undertake similar concerns of previous civil rights movements but argue their step by step incremental approaches to attaining civil rights were and continue to be ineffective at achieving lasting progress. Keeping that in mind, CRT is composed of a few basic tenets:

  1. Racism is ordinary. Acts of lynching, slavery, Jim Crow, gerrymandering, redlining and more on the basis of race are obvious examples of racism that Western society identifies relatively easily. CRT argues, however, that there are many more common, less blatant acts of racism that are slipped under the rug and go unseen.

  2. Racism benefits white people, who make up a large part of Western civilization, giving them little incentive to get rid of or critically investigate systemically racist institutions. CRT claims white people have little incentive to dismantle racist institutions as racism “advances the interests of both white elites (materially), and working class whites (physically)…” (Delgado, 9). CRT scholars often cite instances in which racist laws were not overturned primarily to right past wrongs faced by minority groups, but rather to advance the self interest of whites in power i.e Brown vs Board of Education.

  3. Race is a socially constructed differentiation between persons that has no biological reality. Human beings are by and large very similar in categories of personality, intelligence, and behavior across racial groups. There is no genetic reality to the concept of race other than minute details of those that share similar origins and therefore similar physical features.

  4. Race is utilized to fit societal representations of groups of people when convenient. Race is utilized accordingly to put minority groups in boxes dictated by racial stereotypes of the time period. For example, in one time period, Arabic people have been caricatured as people with large turbans, pet tigers, and wielders of long Saifs and at another time villainized as dangerous, fundamentalist terrorists.

  5. Members of racialized groups have presumed authority to speak on the subject of racism. CRT argues because of the different experiences that various racialized groups have, each may be able to communicate race-related experiences and hardships they face to their white counterparts more effectively than a white person speaking on the concept of experiencing racism itself.

Given this foundation, CRT scholars use the lens of race to examine societal and legal interactions involving persons of color and Western institutions. These issues are of particular importance to CRT scholars due to racial disparities in court case decisions, police violence, and rates of arrest despite committing similar crimes. That being said:

What do advocates of critical race theory instruction argue?

Advocates of CRT instruction claim it is essential to understanding race relations, the history of race, segregation, prejudice, and discrimination in the West. Parents and teachers contributing to school board discussion appear split on the issue, however some maintain CRT is vital for understanding history from non-white perspectives. Others contend that the conversation around critical race theory in the public education system is largely irrelevant. To their credit, CRT itself is very unlikely to be taught in a K-12 class. As a legal discipline, K-12 students and their parents need not worry about shuffling through critical legal theory and its respective concepts. Rather, in elementary and high school settings, critical race theory is more likely to be utilized as a helpful tool for educators and school board members when considering potential improvements to racial diversity and equity in the school system. Ronald Krotoszynski Jr., a professor at the University of Alabama School of Law, and others go as far to claim laws calling to ban CRT in higher educational institutions are unconstitutional in nature as it restricts the academic freedoms of the professor.

Additionally, given the recent unanimous decision of the U.S. Senate to make June 19th a federal holiday commemorating the freedom of African Americans from slavery, some on the left contend that ironically, teachers will be unable to explain the historical significance of the day to their students because CRT instruction is not permitted. While Democratic congresspersons appear less concerned with the issue of critical race theory instruction as compared to their Republican counterparts, systemic racism and understanding its consequences in American institutions is of major importance to the party. Critical race theory seeks to examine exactly that, while critiquing classical incremental approaches to civil rights.

What do skeptics of critical race theory argue?

Many on the right are against critical race theory instruction, arguing that it is harmful, racist, and has no place in the American classroom. CRT critics argue it is not based in any empirical research and inaccurately vilifies American institutions as racist and oppressive. Therefore, with support from Republican Governor Ron DeSantis, a Florida school board banned CRT instruction on the grounds that it is not “factual and objective…” and classroom instruction should not “define American history as something other than the creation of a new nation based largely on universal principles stated in the Declaration of Independence.” This decision resurfaced the critical race theory debate in the classroom sparking nationwide conversations over its instruction.

Furthermore, arguments over whether tax payer dollars should go to teaching CRT is a very contentious issue. U.S. Army General Mark Milley faced major backlash on June 23 after defending CRT instruction at West Point Academy, arguing that classes that teach the theory are valuable. Responses from Republican representative Mike Waltz (R-FL) quickly retorted to his claims on Fox News arguing that CRT is “teaching our future military leaders that they need to resist our very basic institutions… that our Constitution, our court system, our political system is bad… [and] at its core is racist, misogynist, colonialist…” Criticism of critical race theory instruction from fellow representative Byron Donalds (R-FL) argues CRT is a subjective lens to view the history of America and teaches that American systems are inherently broken and that “white men and women who serve in the armed forces [must] be prepared to defend our nation from all foreign entities that will cause us harm… not having to ‘answer for their whiteness.’”