Why all the talk about critical race theory and why now?
For what seems like an entire year now, we’ve been hearing about
Critical Race Theory as if it’s some new thing.
It is not.
The academic concept has been around since at least the 1970s and holds that race, surprise, is not biologically real but is a social construct; and that racism is not the result of bias or prejudice, but is codified in our laws and woven into public policies and systems.
So why all the talk about CRT now?
Two words: Donald Trump.
In case you missed it, the former president issued an executive order back in September that excluded any diversity and inclusion training interpreted as containing “Divisive Concepts,” “Race or Sex Stereotyping,” and “Race or Sex Scapegoating” from federal contracts.
Turns out critical race theory was among said content that was considered divisive.
That led to the #TruthBeTold campaign launched by the African American Policy Forum, the nonprofit think tank led by legal scholar Kimberlé Crenshaw.
Crenshaw, you may or may not recall coined the term intersectionality and, along with Derrick Bell, Gloria Ladson-Billings, Richard Delgado, Jean Stefancic, Patricia J. Williams, Tara J. Yosso and Alan Freeman founded what is now known as critical race theory.
More than 300 diversity and inclusion training have been canceled as a result of Trump’s order. And more than 120 civil rights organizations and allies signed a letter condemning the executive order. The National Urban League, the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc., and the National Fair Housing Alliance filed a federal lawsuit alleging that the executive order violates the guarantees of free speech, equal protection, and due process.
If you’re suddenly making the connection between attacks on CRT and the all-out assault by Republicans on voting rights, welcome to the light. That fire was fueled by Trump, too.
Make no mistake, CRT is not about diversity and inclusion training. It simply calls into question the role of race and racism in our society. That won’t mean much if you’ve never been racially profiled while driving, followed in a department store because of the color of your skin, lived in a food desert, or denied access to quality health care.
Dr. Rajni Shankar-Brown, a professor and endowed chair for social justice education at Stetson University and Vice-President of the National Coalition for the Homeless, gets it. She says that we’re even having this debate should raise eyebrows.
“We have to pause and ask ourselves, why is there so much controversy over this theory, particularly when it is a framework that calls on us to create a more inclusive, more loving, and more just world,” Shankar-Brown said.
Indeed, the backlash was as swift and as strange as it was when Trump first uttered the big lie that he won the 2020 election.
Just as 17 states have passed 28 laws making it harder for constituents to vote despite there being no evidence of widespread voter fraud, Republican legislators in nearly half of all states have introduced bills to regulate how schools teach about race even though there is no K-12 curriculum that even teaches it.
None, according to Randi Weingarten, president of the American Federation of Teachers.
“Let’s be clear: critical race theory is not taught in elementary schools or high schools,” she said. “It’s a method of examination taught in law school and college that helps analyze whether systemic racism exists — and, in particular, whether it has an effect on law and public policy. But culture warriors are labeling any discussion of race, racism or discrimination as CRT to try to make it toxic. They are bullying teachers and trying to stop us from teaching students accurate history.”
Recently Florida became the latest U.S. state to ban the teaching of critical race theory in schools.
Lawmakers in Michigan, Tennessee, Texas, Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Ohio, South Dakota, Arizona, Kentucky, Utah and New Hampshire are also debating bans on CRT.
Iowa, Louisiana, Maine, Missouri, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Wisconsin and West Virginia are considering legislation to prohibit the teaching of “divisive concepts.”
Here in Georgia, where I live, guidelines barring CRT-related discussions have been introduced.
Here’s the truth. CRT does not attribute racism to white people as individuals or even to entire groups of people. It does state, however, that racism is embedded in laws, rules and procedures that lead to differential outcomes by race.
That’s not a theory. That’s the truth.
And so it begs the question, at least in my mind, how much of this is purely political, about preserving power and how much of it is about legitimate concerns about the psychological impact on white children.
Shankar-Brown, an educator and a mother of two school-aged kids, is convinced the term is being deliberately distorted by many critics and being used as a divisive tool to advance social and political agendas.
“The irony about much of the current fear-mongering and claims that CRT is divisive in nature, is that theory is fundamentally focused on cultivating inclusivity and justice,” she said. “CRT affirms diversity. It is rooted in love and focuses on advancing human rights, civil rights, equity, and justice.”
In fact, she said, it emerged from a framework for legal analysis, and it encourages us to disrupt injustice and address false racial hierarchies that are oppressive and harmful.
It also encourages us to ask critical questions, examine systems, policies, practices, and to collectively build a better world for all.
“We cannot afford to ignore racial equity issues,” she said.
Why?
Because millions of Americans are living in poverty and experiencing homelessness in the U.S., including children and youth, and Black and Brown communities are disproportionately impacted.
CRT is a tool that reminds us to look at the systems and structures causing and perpetuating this daunting reality, Shankar-Brown said.
Instead, critics would have us believe CRT makes the argument that white identity is inherently racist. A Newsweek article recently asked readers to “imagine that in rural areas of blue states, public schools started teaching that blackness is a bad deal.”
It was presented as a thought experiment but black children, in one way or another, have been made to feel bad about their blackness for generations. Think about that.
Do I think that makes white children fair game, that we shouldn’t now be concerned about them? Absolutely not. But you have to wonder, even now, where is the collective care and concern for black children, for indigenous children? Don’t they matter, too.
Wouldn’t telling a fuller , more honest history, the kind Shankar-Brown is advocating and the one I’d prefer my grandchildren were taught should I ever have any, make all of us more whole?
“Having courageous dialogue and facing uncomfortable truths are imperative for advancing equity in schools, communities, and our world,” Shankar-Brown said. “One of the key issues is that people from dominant groups with privilege often do not see or experience discomfort from systemic inequalities. And privilege is characteristically invisible to people who have it. Education and moral courage are key for sustainable social change.”
Like it or not, we need to reach our children’s minds and hearts, honor diverse voices and stories, and teach a fuller and more honest history.
“Human and civil rights issues aren’t just going to go away on their own,” Shankar-Brown said. “In fact, since the COVID-19 pandemic started, pressing social and environmental issues have exponentially grown, continuing to surge across the landscape of the U.S., and adversely impacting communities and lives.”
Chris Ferguson, a psychology professor at Stetson, agrees with Shankar-Brown that when it comes to CRT, there’s a lot of misinformation out there..
But the “language games” about defining CRT may be somewhat beside the point, Ferguson said.
Despite Weingarten’s denial that CRT is not taught in schools, he said there is evidence to the contrary and believes that some of what is being done under the guise of CRT in schools may be harmful and divisive, and there are legitimate reasons for concern.
For instance, he said, both the left and right are misrepresenting the content of the anti-CRT bills.
“Some of these bills, particularly the ones that target universities, have free speech issues,” Ferguson said. “ Many have confusing language that may leave teachers unsure where the limits are. However, most explicitly, do not prohibit discussions of racism, slavery, Jim Crow In theory, level heads could compromise on differences and come to workable guidelines for what could or should be included in education.
He said that the right is probably correct in its concern that CRT is an ideology and probably should not be taught as “truth” to students.
At the same time, Ferguson said, the right has also pushed ideology at times whether intelligent design, de-emphasizing slavery in history, or opposing sex education.
“There may be ways to limit the intrusion of ideology into education whether coming from the left or right,” he said.
But even Ferguson is against banning ideas legislatively. People should have the freedom to talk about whatever they want without fear of being canceled, he said.
Said Shankar-Brown, “Nobody is saying teach CRT in elementary school. Rather, recognize that CRT is a useful tool or framework to address systemic disparities and support efforts for sustainable social transformation.”
Honoring diverse stories, prioritizing racial and economic justice, and cultivating equal opportunities for everyone will lead to a better world for all. ‘We the people’ should be ‘We’ and not just some, she said.
In a speech about the attacks on voting rights Tuesday, President Biden said that how we respond may be the test of our times. The same can be said about how we finally examine and deconstruct oppressive policies and practices in our laws and institutions.
