As the debate over diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) continues in schools, a backlash against critical race theory has emerged. These efforts to demonize CRT are based on misconceptions and misinformation.
As Columbia Law professor Kimberle Crenshaw explains, these attempts to censor discussion of structural racism are part of an ongoing campaign that is intended to stoke reactionary resistance.
What is Critical Race Theory?
Despite its growing popularity, many Americans struggle to define Critical Race Theory. Is critical race theory taught in schools? As a result, some are misguidedly seeking to ban its teaching and discussion. The bans, however, are a dangerous attack on free speech and the truthful history of racism in America.
The term “critical race theory” arose from a framework for legal analysis created in the 1970s and 1980s by scholars like Derrick Bell and Kimberle Crenshaw. It challenges the ability of conventional legal strategies to deliver social and economic justice. It calls for legal approaches incorporating race as a central nexus of American life. It recognizes that discrimination can take the form of subtle slurs, explicit derogations, and more systemic structures that create disparities in outcomes, such as zoning laws that keep homes affordable for white residents while stymieing racial desegregation.
In a February 10 panel discussion on CRT, Angela Onwuachi-Willig, a professor of law at Howard University and a renowned expert on the topic, clarified the meaning of CRT. She explained that it is not, as some have suggested, a philosophy that assumes people are inherently racist or oppressive. It is not a movement that elevates the equality principles of the Fourteenth Amendment above the liberty principles of the First Amendment.
Instead, it is a set of theoretical propositions that explain how U.S. social institutions—including law enforcement, schools, housing, finance, and the criminal justice system—have been laced with racism, leading to disparities in treatment and outcomes for American citizens. It does not attribute racism to individuals but to the broader institutions that govern us.
What is CRT?
CRT focuses on how the law treats different racial groups differently and how that systemic inequality perpetuates itself. It recognizes the importance of incorporating people’s lived experiences into scholarship. It rejects the idea that scholarship that ignores race demonstrates neutrality and embraces that white privilege impacts scholars’ understanding of their research subjects. It also acknowledges the importance of a multi-racial approach to justice and calls for a more holistic and inclusive definition of race.
The originators of CRT include Derrick Bell, Kimberle Crenshaw, Cheryl Harris, Gloria Ladson-Billings, and Tara Yosso. It grew out of legal and academic conversations about the nature and impact of racism in the United States, and it has been applied to other fields, including education. It is one of several approaches to understanding and addressing racism that has become a movement.
It has been a significant tool used by civil rights attorneys. However, the current backlash against CRT in the form of laws attempting to ban discussions in schools does not advance justice and harms students. By suffocating this vital conversation, these laws deny our nation’s history, silence voices of dissent, and prevent us from fully understanding the racial injustices that still affect our society today. It’s time to turn the tables and demand that our lawmakers address these issues fairly and transparently.
How is CRT Applied?
There are a lot of disagreements about how to understand, teach, and apply CRT. The most fundamental differences stem from different conceptions of racism. CRT focuses on outcomes (like discrimination and oppression) rather than beliefs or intent. It also emphasizes the interrelatedness of people across racial lines and challenges traditional ideas like objective knowledge, individual merit, Enlightenment rationalism, and liberalism–tenets that conservatives hold dear.
CRT proponents argue that a system of laws, policies, and practices enforces racial inequality in American society. They believe that, while race is not a biological fact, it influences life chances and experiences. Those who promote this theory of justice often argue that old systems need major restructuring and that law is a powerful tool for change.
The debate around CRT has had real-world consequences in schools. Students and educators discuss its tenets in classrooms and boardrooms, often during heated and argumentative discussions. Some states have banned books on the topic, and other schools are restricting their curriculum due to political campaigns and pressure from parents.
Sue Coyle, MSW, a community organizer and social worker in Philadelphia, explains that the pushback against the discussion of CRT sends a message to children of color that their experience, perspective, and daily struggle in a white supremacist society doesn’t matter. She says this hurts identity, esteem, and efficacy.
How is CRT Defeated?
While proponents of CRT do believe society must rethink its old systems, they do not endorse hatred of white people or view all whites as oppressors. As the debate over the framework has raged, critics have grossly exaggerated its tenets to create fear. This has given rise to a backlash against the theory, with many school boards and state legislatures nationwide banning discussion of racism in schools.
These bans, modeled on a September 2020 executive order signed by President Trump, generally prohibit discussions of race and gender in the classroom that the legislators have deemed divisive. The laws often lack context and definitions, and they can limit or even cut funding for anti-bias training for students or teachers, diversity workshops, and other efforts that challenge the status quo of racial inequality.
These bans can have severe implications for our democracy. They threaten the free exchange of ideas, in which different viewpoints are presented, and they undermine the fundamental values of our constitutional republic. They also counter the spirit of the Equal Rights Amendment, which requires states to guarantee equal rights under the law. As the debate over CRT continues, we must remain vigilant to ensure the principles it advocates are not silenced. Whether at school board meetings or in state capitols, we must ensure that young people can discuss these issues healthily and productively.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the exploration of Critical Race Theory reveals a complex and thought-provoking framework for understanding and analyzing systems of power and oppression. This theory challenges us to confront uncomfortable truths about racism and inequality within our society, urging us to critically examine our own biases and complicity in perpetuating systemic injustice.
By centering the experiences of marginalized communities and recognizing the ways in which race intersects with other forms of discrimination, Critical Race Theory offers a powerful tool for social justice advocacy and transformative change.
As we continue to grapple with racial inequality, it is essential that we engage with this theory in order to dismantle oppressive structures and work towards a more equitable future. Let us embrace the challenge posed by Critical Race Theory as we strive for a society that values justice
