The Critical Race Theory "Controversy"

 

In recent months, right-wing groups have attacked the alleged use in our schools of "Critical Race Theory," using it as a cudgel to inflame people and to prevent the teaching of basic historical facts and to suppress discussion of the significance of those facts. This is part of an effort to agitate and excite its base to get them to the polls and school board meetings in support of their issues more broadly.  They assert that Critical Race Theory is a doctrine that people  “should view everything through the lens of race and then pit them against one another.”[1] 

 

But this is NOT what Critical Race Theory is.  Rather, it is  a framework which seeks to understand the impact of race in America. It is a graduate level academic construct focusing on the proposition that, from the beginning of the European migration to what is now the United States, racism has been so intertwined with American law and society that they cannot easily be disentangled. Critical Race theorists have drawn such conclusions based on their assessment of historical and current facts. Nowhere is Critical Race Theory taught as the official core doctrine of American history in our primary and secondary schools; but, one would hope that the kinds of facts that underly it are presented in an age-appropriate manner.

 

Kendall Thomas is the co-editor of Critical Race Theory: The Key Writings That Formed the Movement.  He observes that the theory maintains that racism “does not have to define our future if we have the will and the courage to reckon with it.”  Rather than encouragingWhite people to feel guilty, Thomas explains, Critical Race Theorists aim to shift focus away from individual people’s bad actions  and toward how systems uphold racial disparities. Thomas concludes that “Critical race theory is an effort really to move beyond the focus on [simply] finding fault by impugning [people’s] racist” animus and the like, and instead looking “at the ways in which racial inequality is embedded in structures in ways of which we are very often unaware.”[2]     Nevertheless, right-wing groups incorrectly assert that “Critical Race Theory” is a doctrine which asserts that all White people are inherently, unavoidably, and irretrievably racist, and that this doctrine threatens to take over education in our country.[3] They lump the theory together with the historical facts surrounding  race in America. They oppose mention in our classrooms of historical facts and current conditions that might make White children feel bad.  Their goal is to suppress uncomfortable facts about our shared history.   Daniel Patrick Moynihan famously said that “everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.”  But the attack on “Critical Race Theory” is an effort to impose a whitewashed version of America, by suppressing discussion of relevant facts.   There are a variety of theories that seek to make sense out of the facts. One may be summarized by Chief Justice Roberts’  2007 statement that "the way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race"[4] ; this is a proposition that past evils are totally a thing of the past, that any legacies of human slavery in America have zero impact on our society today.    Recent attacks on “Critical Race Theory” are, at best, nothing more than attempts to ensconce “Roberts RaceTheory” as the official doctrine of American education, holding as irrelevant any possible impact of human  slavery and its legacy on 21st Century America.  At worst - and most of the time they are “at worst” – they are attempts to whitewash the facts of our history. For example, that is precisely what the recent Texas law limiting what may be taught in their public schools does.   In Texas, teaching of some relevant facts is permitted, but discussion of the implication of those facts is effectively prohibited by, for example, barring discussion of The 1619 Project.[5]   What our schools should do is to teach the relevant historical facts — the bad and the ugly, not just the “good” — so that students can draw their own conclusions. Those who do not learn from history are condemned to repeat its errors.  Students need the factual bases and critical thinking skills to draw their own conclusions. That is education, not indoctrination.   William Faulkner wrote decades ago, “The past is not dead.  It is not even past.”  We need to face honestly whether or how much this is the case as we grapple with American human slavery and its impacts.      [1] https://dcist.com/story/21/09/29/mcauliffe-youngkin-spar-over-vaccine-mandates-education-policy-final-gubernatorial-debate/   [2] https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2021/05/29/critical-race-theory-bans-schools/   [3] https://secured.heritage.org/critical-race-theory-ebook-offer/?utm_campaign=crtebook&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook&utm_content=criticalracetheory_1   [4] https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2014/04/race-and-the-supreme-court-what-the-schuette-decision-reveals-about-how-we-talk-about-race.html   [5] https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/87R/billtext/pdf/HB03979F.pdf#navpanes=0   at  pp. 5-6: Teachers may not “make part of a course the concept that:  . . . . (ix) the advent of slavery in the territory that is now the United States constituted the true founding of the United States; or  (x) with respect to their relationship to American values, slavery and racism are anything other than deviations from, betrayals of,  or failures to live up to, the authentic founding principles of the United States, which include liberty and equality;  and (C) require an understanding of The 1619 Project.” (This is the same statute that scared school staff in South Lakes, Texas, to suggest that books on the Holocaust could not be in  school libraries unless there were books that presented “the other side” of the “controversy.”  Presumably, the same would  apply to books teaching the actual facts of Reconstruction and its aftermath – somehow requiring that something like D.W.  Griffith’s infamous film, Birth of a Nation should be presented as “alternative (albeit false) facts” to provide balanced teaching.) Attachments area