CRT, Critical Race Theory, a Primer, Definition, and Explanation

A summary from Neal Hardin:

Over the past several years, few ideas have ignited more debate than critical race theory (CRT). Terms that critical race theory uses, such as systemic racism, white privilege, anti-racism, whiteness, and microaggressions, have become common.

Everywhere we look, we see CRT invoked as either something to be feared or something to be loved, something to be endorsed or something to be refuted. It’s a polarizing issue.

And that makes sense, because under critical race theory, there is no middle ground. You are either an “oppressor” or “oppressed,” a “racist” or “anti-racist.”

Racism is wrong. Every person is deserving of equal treatment and respect. But CRT (can) compound the problem.

But what do we need to know about CRT? Where does it come from? Where is it spreading? And how might it affect you and the freedoms you care about?

It’s an exceedingly complex topic, so let’s break it down.

 
What is critical theory?

Critical race theory can, in part, be traced to a field of postmodern academic thought called critical theory. The term “critical theory” was coined by Max Horkheimer in his 1937 essay “Traditional and Critical Theory.” According to Horkheimer, the role of critical theory is to critique (hence “critical”) and ultimately change society as opposed to traditional theory that merely sought to describe it (usually in a scientific manner).

Today, there are many bodies of critical theory, including critical gender theory, critical queer theory, critical postcolonial theory, critical intersectional feminism, and more.

Writing for National Review, Cameron Hilditch notes that critical theory was established by “a group of German Marxist thinkers known as the Frankfurt School.” Hilditch writes:

Critical theorists … believe that societies, cultures, and civilizations are almost entirely social constructs … The most important question to the critical theorist is therefore Cicero’s famous “Cui bono?”—“Who benefits?”

Who benefits? Who has power? As Tim Keller helpfully notes, under secular critical theory, “reality is at bottom nothing but power.”

From this understanding of power flows a radical skepticism toward objective knowledge.

James Lindsay and Helen Pluckrose, scholars who have researched critical theory, write that its proponents reject objective truth, reason, and empirical evidence. Instead, critical theorists assert that only identity and oppression matter.

Critical theory divides society according to whether one is a member of an oppressor or oppressed group or groups. Critical theory’s warped understanding of power and knowledge undermine confidence in the foundations of liberalism: equality, universality, and individual rights.

 
The origins of critical race theory

While many ideological underpinnings of critical race theory came from critical theory, critical race theory originally emerged in the 1970s and ’80s out of a field of legal scholarship called critical legal studies (CLS). As you might guess, CLS also has its roots in critical theory.

According to Cornell Law School’s Legal Information Institute, critical legal studies looks at how “the law supports a power dynamic which favors the historically privileged and disadvantages the historically underprivileged.”

In other words, CLS posits that laws are inherently biased because they were created to serve the self-interest and to enhance the power of a privileged few. This perspective stands in sharp contrast to the American constitutional tradition, in which the law secures rights equally for all people.

The Conference on Critical Legal Studies was founded in 1977 by legal scholars who had been influenced by the civil rights movement, the Vietnam War, and the social and political upheaval of the 1960s and ’70s.

Some of those same CLS scholars would go on to develop critical race theory because they were seeking to explain why the changes in law gained by the civil rights movement on racial issues (such as the Civil Rights Act of 1964) were still being ignored, resisted, or obstructed by many state governments and other institutions.

CLS scholars believed that if a change in the laws were the only thing necessary to achieve equality, then the passage of civil rights legislation should have guaranteed the rights of racial minorities in the United States. But since there were still disparities in outcomes, they believed other institutionalized forces must have been at work.

The “critical” aspects of CRT led to a radical skepticism that there was any real improvement in the first place.

Derrick Bell, considered one of the first and most influential proponents of critical race theory, wrote an article in 1980 in the Harvard Law Review in which he called into question the motives behind the landmark 1954 Supreme Court decision Brown v. Board of Education that desegregated public schools. The Supreme Court’s decision should have been celebrated as an example of righting a wrong. Instead, Bell framed it as opportunism, claiming that it was possible only because the interests of the white majority, which he believed were saving face internationally and developing the South economically, converged with the interests of the black minority, which were achieving equal treatment and equal access.

Out of these seedbeds of scholarship for critical theory and critical legal studies grew what we now know as “critical race theory.”

 
One of the most pernicious ways we see critical race theory affecting our society is in our K-12 education system.One of the most pernicious ways we see critical race theory affecting our society is in our K-12 education system.

 
What is critical race theory?

The term “critical race theory” was coined by Kimberlé Crenshaw at a 1989 conference called “New Developments in Critical Race Theory.” According to Crenshaw, the conference was designed to attract those “who were looking both for a critical space in which race was foregrounded and a race space where critical themes were central.”

The conference explored the intersection of critical theory, critical legal studies, and race. Crenshaw recalls that several themes arose from that first conference, such as “critiques of neutrality, objectivity, colorblindness, meritocracy, and formal equality.” Many of these themes have continued to define CRT to this day.

With that background in mind, what is critical race theory? To answer that, let’s pivot to two of CRT’s foremost scholars: Richard Delgado and Jean Stefancic.

In their seminal work Critical Race Theory: An Introduction, Delgado and Stefancic write:

“The critical race theory (CRT) movement is a collection of activists and scholars interested in studying and transforming the relationship among race, racism, and power. The movement considers many of the same issues that conventional civil rights and ethnic studies discourses take up but places them in a broader perspective that includes economics, history, setting, group and self-interest, and emotions and the unconscious. Unlike traditional civil rights, which embraces incrementalism and step-by-step progress, critical race theory questions the very foundations of the liberal order, including equality theory, legal reasoning, Enlightenment rationalism, and neutral principles of constitutional law.”

While there’s no one list of principles that all scholars of critical race theory agree on, Delgado and Stefancic lay out several tenets that have come to define CRT:

 
1. “Racism is ordinary, not aberrational.”

One of the most important beliefs of CRT scholars is that racism permeates society, the law, and all institutions. Proponents of critical race theory claim it is the air we breathe and the water we swim in, something so normal that it is “unacknowledged” by most people. To maintain this assertion, critical race theory redefines “racism.”

Racism has long been understood as prejudice and discrimination based on race. But under critical race theory, racism comes to mean any disparity observed along racial lines.

For example, if one racial group is outperforming another group in academic achievement, that is, by definition, racism. The fact that a racial disparity exists is “racism”—regardless of whether it is the result of prejudicial attitudes. This redefinition shifts the emphasis from equal treatment to equal outcomes.

 
2. Interest convergence

As Derrick Bell argued in his article about Brown v. Board of Education, critical race theory asserts that the majority will only secure civil rights for minorities when it serves the majority’s self-interest. In other words, any concept of altruism is thrown out the window.

 
3. Race as a social construct

Delgado and Stefancic write that in critical race theory, “Race and races are products of social thought and relations. Not objective, inherent, or fixed, they correspond to no biological or genetic reality; rather, races are categories that society invents, manipulates, or retires when convenient.”

In other words, CRT advocates claim that while groups of people do share certain biological traits, the fact that we group ourselves according to qualities like these rather than characteristics like “personality, intelligence, and moral behavior” demonstrates that race is a social construct.

 
4. Intersectionality

This term was also coined by Crenshaw. Delgado and Stefancic note, “Everyone has potentially conflicting, overlapping identities, loyalties, and allegiances.” Therefore, people will experience unique forms of oppression or discrimination based on the intersection of their oppressed identities.

For example, according to this logic, while a black man or a white woman might experience different forms of discrimination, a black woman, based on the combination of her two oppressed identities, will experience unique forms of oppression. The converse is also true. A white man will experience unique forms of “privilege” based on the combination of his privileged identities.

 
5. Unique voice of color

Critical race theory also holds that members of racial minorities enjoy a unique perspective with “a presumed competence to speak about race and racism” in ways that white people, being in the majority, are not.

This perspective involves “story-telling” and engaging in “revisionist history” to develop counternarratives and histories centered on the experiences of minorities rather than majorities. One example of the “unique voice of color” is the 1619 Project, which seeks to place “the consequences of slavery and the contributions of black Americans at the very center of our national narrative.” This also means that society can discount the views of those in the majority simply because of their skin color.

In addition to the principles laid out by Delgado and Stefancic, one final principle common among CRT scholars is a rejection of “colorblindness.” In the framework of critical race theory, the notion of colorblindness serves only to keep white people in a position of power by feigning neutrality in racial issues. As one author put it, regardless of one’s personal attitudes, “racism can be evidenced in the outcome of processes and relations irrespective of intent.” In other words, CRT teaches that a person can still be racist even if they hold no prejudicial attitudes toward another race.

But the implications of critical race theory go beyond race.

As a theory with intellectual roots in Marxism, it’s not surprising that CRT and other critical theories view all Western values—including religious freedom, the importance of the nuclear family, and Judeo-Christian conceptions of morality—as inherently oppressive.

For example, CRT proponents reject American ideals such as hard work or equal treatment under the law because they view them as rooted in oppression. They see those principles as means through which power and privilege are projected throughout society. Such values, CRT concludes, must be reformed, replaced, or overthrown until racial equity (rather than equality) is achieved.

Martin Luther King Jr. dreamed that his children would “one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.” Contrary to Dr. King’s dream, in a society dominated by critical race theory, one’s race is the most important aspect of a person’s identity. It determines whether someone is categorized as an oppressor or oppressed.

 
The ideology of critical race theory is already dominating America’s most influential institutions.The ideology of critical race theory is already dominating America's most influential institutions.

 
What are the practical implications of critical race theory?

After reading all this, you might be wondering, “How does critical race theory affect me? How does it affect my freedoms?”

Since CRT rejects principles of constitutional law—indeed, rejects the entire liberal order out of which the U.S. Constitution arose—it cynically casts aside rights like religious freedom and free speech, which were key to advancing the civil rights movement. In reality, free speech lifts people up and leads to justice. But proponents of critical race theory view these fundamental freedoms as more ways for the powerful to oppress the powerless. Since CRT’s adherents characterize opposing views as racist, discussion is not an option. They are prone to resorting to censorship and silencing critics. And CRT’s victims aren’t just conservatives or people of faith.

Delgado and Stefancic also address the pervasiveness of critical race theory:

“Although CRT began as a movement in the law, it has rapidly spread beyond that discipline. Today, many in the field of education consider themselves critical race theorists who use CRT’s ideas to understand issues of school discipline and hierarchy, tracking, affirmative action, high-stakes testing, controversies over curriculum and history, and alternative and charter schools.”

This ideology is already dominating America’s most influential institutions, including government, major corporations, and academia.

 
Critical race theory in K-12 education

One of the most (influential) ways we see critical race theory affecting society is in our education system. CRT is informing the trainings that many public-school teachers and administrators receive and the curricula they are tasked with teaching children.

In these schools, students aren’t learning about Derrick Bell, Kimberlé Crenshaw, or Richard Delgado and Jean Stefancic. And that fact conveniently allows many to deny that critical race theory is being taught in schools at all. But that masks the truth: schools are implementing classroom practices rooted in a CRT-influenced ideology that often masquerades by the name “anti-racism.”

Anti-racism is critical race theory’s answer to racism. While “anti-racism” may sound good on the surface (who doesn’t want to stand against racism?), it actually mandates more racism by treating people differently based on race.

Ibram X. Kendi, a leading proponent of critical race theory, embraces this new form of racism in his book How to Be an Antiracist when he says, “The only remedy to racist discrimination is antiracist discrimination. The only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination. The only remedy to present discrimination is future discrimination.” Because racial equity (equal outcomes) rather than racial equality (equal opportunities) is the goal of CRT, racial discrimination is necessary to achieve those outcomes.

In CRT, discrimination and racism become the solutions to discrimination and racism. Ironically, anyone who does not embrace this logic and become an “anti-racist” advocate is branded a “racist.” There’s no middle ground.

This ideology runs directly contrary to the Supreme Court’s own precedent. In Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote, “The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” You can’t stop the evils of racism and discrimination with more of the same.

While some supporters of CRT may sincerely seek to address racial inequalities, their methods harm children of all races.

4 steps to destroying the ideals and values of the middle class

[Small snippet of an article by Ronald Dworkin in First Things magazine, link HERE]

"...The Cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) method gradually penetrated American cultural life and changed our politics. The effect was first felt in the 1960s, when CBT penetrated the civil rights movement. Notions of self-esteem and personal identity became central to the movement’s worldview, replacing the older emphasis on voting rights and access to jobs and housing. Soon followed the focus on group identity, the belief that racism is both a conscious and a subconscious phenomenon, and the idea that racism’s effects can be invisible—all hallmarks of today’s identity politics.

The transformation of civil rights into a right to self-esteem was only the beginning. Millions of unhappy people, angry about life but impotent to do anything about it, found psychological release through a four-step method reminiscent of CBT. In the process, they changed American politics.

1) In the first step, civil rights activists demanded that all disadvantaged people enjoy a feeling of equality with average, middle-class people. Although the movement was motivated by noble goals, it risked impracticality at certain points. For example, in 1970, the City University of New York lowered its admission standards to give everyone a shot at middle-class success and respectability. Yet rather than raise up disadvantaged and remedial students, the reform simply lowered the college’s academic level, making it harder for anyone to get a good education there.

2) A second step followed. When some disadvantaged people still failed to achieve middle-class success and respectability, they did what CBT encourages. Just as the man who blames an ethic of success for his unhappiness finds relief by smirking at successful people—those who felt aggrieved by their relative lack of success took average, middle-class people down a notch through ridicule. Activists slandered middle-class people to obscure their positive attributes. They belittled middle-class attitudes toward sex and religion, conservative dress, and efforts to become “solid” citizens.

Still, the values of middle-class success and respectability survived, even as some people failed to achieve them. People might have laughed at the life habits that went along with them, but they could not escape the conflict within themselves between their desire for these things and their impotence to get them. 

3) Thus, the third step: To take average, middle-class people down another notch, activists depreciated middle-class success and respectability, calling these things insignificant. In social science, for example, adulthood and maturity ceased to be measured by whether one had a job or a mortgage or was financially responsible—typical middle-class achievements—but by whether one possessed certain psychological traits, such as tolerance and empathy. The social model of adulthood gave way to a psychological model that consisted of values that anyone could possess, including the marginal and disadvantaged.

Activists during this phase did not say that middle-class success and respectability were bad, only that the measures of traditional middle-class success and respectability were bad. Adulthood was still praised—but now a tolerant, empathic thirty-something who dressed in grunge style and played video games all day was considered more mature than a bank executive with a house and a family who lacked the same ethical consciousness. New avenues to middle-class success and respectability opened as a result. Nevertheless, there remained people who failed to achieve any semblance of success or respectability. Their inner tension, manifested in an impulse of resentment, still begged for release.

4) Release came in the fourth and final step, whereby middle-class success and respectability ceased to be good and became evil. Success itself was said to be the product of racism, sexism, classism, ableism, and transphobia, and impossible to reconcile with the values of inclusivity. The nuclear family, once good, became a manifestation of the evil patriarchy. America’s success as a country became evil; patriotism, once good, likewise became evil. Free speech became an enemy of progressive values. Good manners became evil, as they prevented activists from shouting down the defenders of middle-class respectability. Police who protect life and property—two major bourgeois concerns—went from good to evil. Art that appeals to middle-class sensibilities, ranging from Shakespeare to Jane Austen, went from good to evil—or at least suspect—while art steeped in revolutionary social justice became the supreme good.

Psychologically, the systematic reinterpretation of middle-class values promised a great deal more than the depreciation of middle-class success had: It brought release to millions. Successful and respectable middle-class people, once a cause of pain and envy for others, were now to be pitied rather than respected. They were, if not evil, then at least beset with evils. The disadvantaged and marginal, especially the unhappy among them, were the pure, the elect, and the good.

All that remained was for successful, respectable middle-class Americans to buy into the new values, to poison their own minds, to feel guilty and ashamed of their success and their country’s heritage, to wallow in the morbid and to dwell fanatically on the lives of victims. Many do. Hence the dawn of woke politics, which is perhaps best understood as CBT on a mass scale..."