Whose Afraid of Critical Race Theory?
Another school year is rapidly approaching, but the threat of the coronavirus remains. Public educators at all levels are trying to craft sensible measures to protect the health and safety of both students and institutional personnel, but their efforts are challenged by some who ignore scientific advice and claim their constitutional rights are being undermined.
Given the circumstances one might expect the people’s representatives to rally to the defense of these beleaguered public servants, but alas, that is not the case. For many, ideological, or rather, political agendas are instead the order of the day.
In a number of states, including the Carolinas, politicians have shown little sympathy for public educators trying to balance the benefits of in-person learning with the potential threat of coronavirus surges. The rhetoric of some state legislators limits options available to education administrators even when management control is not stripped away by law.
And now, politicians across the country are adding to the woes of public educators by raising the spectre of Critical Race Theory (CRT) as a threat to civil society. With the generous assistance of several well-heeled think tanks (the Heritage Foundation and the Manhattan Institute come to mind), outrage over CRT has reached a fever pitch in some quarters, primarily in states where Republicans control the legislature.
In some cases, statutes have been passed demanding that public schools and colleges reject any discussion related to CRT, or any speaker associated with the theory. Considerations of academic freedom or intellectual integrity carry little weight.
What exactly is “Critical Race Theory”?
Encyclopedia Britannica defines CRT as:
an intellectual movement and loosely organized framework of legal analysis based
on the premise that race is not a natural, biologically grounded feature of physically distinct sub-groups of human beings but a socially constructed (culturally invented) category that is used to oppress and exploit people of color.
“Loosely organized” is very appropriate given the manner in which the concept has been implemented. In general, CRT has been a catchall term for the study of how racism has shaped law and societal institutions in the US leading to ongoing inequalities for African Americans that persist today.
Serious advocates focus on the discriminatory practices people of color face that impacts their ability to participate fully in politics and in key economic areas such as education, employment and housing. They postulate that the origin of this discrimination is rooted in the institution of slavery.
No rational student of American history can dispute the general assumptions of CRT. Slavery was an accepted part of our political and economic makeup from the very beginning. Although confined generally to the future Confederate states, Northern states were complicit in the original bargain, agreeing to the three-fifths compromise on representation and taxes and allowing the slave trade to continue for twenty years after the Constitution was signed along with a slew of minor provisions that reinforced the influence of the slave-holding states.
A bitter civil war, Jim Crow laws, lynching, whites-only political party primaries, redlining---our history is strewed with examples of racial prejudice.
The question is how do we rid our society of systemic racism that continues to exist in so many aspects of our society? Obviously, the first step in finding answers is not to refuses to discuss the issue which is apparently the choice of CRT opponents in some state legislatures.
Critics of CRT claim it is being used to teach young impressionable students that America and white people are inherently and irredeemably racist. They share stories about young white children returning home from school ashamed of being white.
Shaming white people is not the goal of CRT. Its purpose is to seek a more complete and honest assessment of the impact of race on the nation. Wrongs cannot be redressed by rewriting history, but with a fuller understanding of the past, it is possible to create a more just future.
There is the possibility that criticizing CRT has a more cynical objective. The term may be a “dog whistle” for white supremacists, a coded message communicated through words or phrases commonly understood by a particular group of people, but not by others. It would not be the first time right-wing politicians have used such language to assure their constituents that they consider black and brown groups threats. Nixon’s use of “law and order” in 1968 and 1972 is an example.
Action in the US House of Representatives early this week (Tuesday, June 29) is sadly indicative. A bill was passed removing from the Capitol the bust of Roger Taney, author of the Dred Scott opinion issued in 1857 that declared African Americans were not citizens and had no standing in federal courts. Included in the measure was an order that the busts and statues of Confederate leaders and other promoters of slavery were also to be removed from the Capitol. It passed 285-120.
Although 67 Republicans voted in favor of the bill, all votes against the removal came from the GOP. Despite the fact that both Carolinas have a significant number of African American citizens, five of the 13 North Carolina representatives voted “no” and five of the seven-member South Carolina delegation also opposed. If public officials sworn to defend the constitutional rights of all citizens cannot support removal of statuary honoring blatant racists from the most sacred halls of the nation, how can African Americans ever feel their right to equal status is accepted in American society.