Once again we see efforts to avoid discussing seriously the issue of race in the US. This time it consists of attacks on teaching critical race theory in schools. What is this theory?
Critical race theory is an academic concept that is more than 40 years old. The core idea is that racism is a social construct, and that it is not merely the product of individual bias or prejudice, but also something embedded in legal systems and policies.
The basic tenets of critical race theory, or CRT, emerged out of a framework for legal analysis in the late 1970s and early 1980s created by legal scholars Derrick Bell, Kimberlé Crenshaw, and Richard Delgado, among others.
A good example is when, in the 1930s, government officials literally drew lines around areas deemed poor financial risks, often explicitly due to the racial composition of inhabitants. Banks subsequently refused to offer mortgages to Black people in those areas.
Today, those same patterns of discrimination live on through facially race-blind policies, like single-family zoning that prevents the building of affordable housing in advantaged, majority-white neighborhoods and, thus, stymies racial desegregation efforts.
…This academic understanding of critical race theory differs from representation in recent popular books and, especially, from its portrayal by critics—often, though not exclusively, conservative Republicans. Critics charge that the theory leads to negative dynamics, such as a focus on group identity over universal, shared traits; divides people into “oppressed” and “oppressor” groups; and urges intolerance.
…One conservative organization, the Heritage Foundation, recently attributed a whole host of issues to CRT, including the 2020 Black Lives Matter protests, LGBTQ clubs in schools, diversity training in federal agencies and organizations, California’s recent ethnic studies model curriculum, the free-speech debate on college campuses, and alternatives to exclusionary discipline—such as the Promise program in Broward County, Fla., that some parents blame for the Parkland school shootings. “
As is so often the case with discussions about race, some whites fear being placed in the position of being called racist. But CRT is not about doing that.
The theory says that racism is part of everyday life, so people—white or nonwhite—who don’t intend to be racist can nevertheless make choices that fuel racism.
Some critics claim that the theory advocates discriminating against white people in order to achieve equity.
…Fundamentally, though, the disagreement springs from different conceptions of racism. CRT thus puts an emphasis on outcomes, not merely on individuals’ own beliefs, and it calls on these outcomes to be examined and rectified.
The idea that systemic racism exists in the very institutions of American society is anathema to some. They would prefer to think that racism consists of individual beliefs and behaviors because that exempts them from any responsibility to actually do something about it, as long as they can demonstrate their own bona fides by having the proverbial black friend.
Agree that it’s about cosseting one’s own racism, so that, if you don’t actively participate in lynching Black people, you can say you’re not racist and that’s the end of your effort.
It’s become bizarrely twisted to stand for anti-white racism, and inducing deep guilt about being white into poor little innocent children. Which is odd: I don’t see how anyone would feel guilt. One can be ashamed that society is like this and does these things, and then get rid of that by taking action to change it.
There are currents in CRT that are a little more worrisome than you propose, Mano. Such as the rejection of all rational thought as “white” in contrast with somehow innate “other ways of being” somehow uniquely understood other populations. Plus, the thesis that everything and everyone is racist and only a priesthood of woke believers can save us verges on religion to me, and I am not interested in another religion or new concepts of “original sin”.
They would prefer to think that racism consists of individual beliefs and behaviors …
Yet they also describe critical race theory as a set of accusations of individual racism.
They just don’t want racism discussed at all.
bmiller @ # 2: … the rejection of all rational thought as “white” …
Eh what? I have seen such rejection, but never yet under the rubric of CRT. Gotta citation for us?
Just lengthy discussions in other places. No direct quotes. So take it for what it’s worth. This was a good summary from a poster at another blog I follow:
CRT’s philosophical lineage is critical theory. I mean, it’s in the name, but it’s very easy to read it as the critical in “critical thinking” rather than in “critical theory”. As such, it inherits all the good and ill from its progenitor. Per the wiki entry on Derrick Bell, whose work informed CRT’s genesis, “Bell and other legal scholars began using the phrase ‘critical race theory’ (CRT) in the 1970s as a takeoff on ‘critical legal theory’, a branch of legal scholarship that challenges the validity of concepts such as rationality, objective truth, and judicial neutrality. Critical legal theory was itself a takeoff on critical theory, a philosophical framework with roots in Marxist thought.” It is important not to gloss over the concepts against which CLT, and by inheritance CRT, is set in opposition. CLT critiques the very concept of rationality—not whether anyone ever achieves perfect rationality, but whether the concept per se is problematic. That is, it advances the notion that rationality is not and should not be part of legal intentionality. Similarly, it opposes the ideas that objective truth should be a relevant concept in law and that the judiciary should strive for neutrality.
But more critically, because everything and everyone is completely racist (an exaggeration, but as with much with the modern woke left one can find this I would bet) what utility does the concept even have? Again…we are talking “original sin” here. Which, given American history is not wrong in many respects, but the purity policing is not very useful.
“According to early theorist Richard Delgado, CRT has no truck with “equality theory, legal reasoning, Enlightenment rationalism, and neutral principles of constitutional law.” To clarify, he means that the ideas that the law should treat people equally, that it is possible to use reason as a legal tool, that rational inquiry is to be preferred over emotional response, and that constitutional law should be neutral are all problematic and in need of radical deconstruction. Opposition to equal treatment generates the CRT rejection of individualism and rights-based solutions to, well, anything.”
Again..these are interpretations by one random writer on these here inner toobz And certainly not every scholar engaged in CRT would go this far. Hence my original point that there be dragons that lie this way in uncritical acceptance of CRT as an academic theory.
bmiller @ # 5-7 -- Thanks for the explication, but your # 2 still comes across as a sort of cherry-picking of “uncritical acceptance of CRT as an academic theory”, ascribed to “currents in CRT” in a way that reminds me of late-nite comedians searching out blithering fools for selectively-edited person-on-the-street interviews.
And even then, where did you get that rejection of all rational thought as “white” riff?
bmiller @5:
I don’t think the objection is to rationality as such, but to the “method of reasoned elaboration“;
Pierce #8: and Rob @9: Reasonable points, all. But the danger is some of the ideas in CRT will be simplified and weaponized. Which seems to be a danger in political discourse across the political spectrum. 🙁
Rob:
I am not a lawyer, but I am not as bothered by the “method of reasoned elaboration” as you say CRT theorists are????
I am not sure that JUDGES are necessarily the ones to “question the basic assumptions” anyway. 🙂 Would you want a Scalia to question the basic assumptions of modern liberalism?
Hey….but I am not lawyer or political theorist. And as a white male, I am automatically guilty of everything! So…. 🙂
This entire discussion shows precisely why these laws are such a bad idea. Ask 50 different people what “critical race theory” means and you will get 50 wildly different interpretations. The least well informed of these will doubtless come from the legislators who wrote the law — it’s clear from the vagueness of the wording that they have no idea what they’re banning.
But clearly the vagueness is the whole point. The real purpose seems to be to send a message to US history teachers: “If you ever say anything at all about race and history that makes a white student uncomfortable, and that student’s parent complains to the principal, then the principal gets to fire your ass to keep said parent happy. Just steer clear of the entire subject of race and have the kids learn about white people, the way we did back in the 70s.”
I don’t see any way these laws can hold up in court, but they’re probably counting on the teachers being too cowed to test the law, get fired, and sue.
But how big of a danger is this, really? As far as I am aware, none of the places where these bans are happening are actually teaching critical race theory. It is not a part of the curriculum. There was a huge controversy about CRT in a nearby school district reported on by our public radio:
https://news.stlpublicradio.org/education/2021-05-04/a-split-rockwood-school-community-in-war-of-words-over-how-to-teach-diversity
The district has never taught critical race theory.
brucegee: Outstanding point. Because, despite my skepticisms here, I am nonetheless in full favor of the 1619 Project, which draws a bit from CRT, of course.
Jackson: It’s all about conservative virtue signaling. While I remain skeptical about some of the elements of CRT (as much as an amateur can be), I would be really surprised if it was anything more than standard history with a little more balance than the standard We’re Number One American theology.
The idea that systemic racism exists in the very institutions of American society is anathema to some
They need to have Michel Foucault unloaded on their asses. The problem, I think Foucault would argue, is that since America has been so racist, that it is impossible to think about America through a non-racialized lens. After all, America, collectively, went to tremendous effort to construct that racialized view of the country -- there is no viewing point from which anyone can look at America from an other perspective.
Try to think of something American that is untouched by its racism. Baseball? Nope. Hot dogs? Nope. Pizza? Nope. Southern politics? Hahahaa! No, seriously. I can’t speak for Foucault but he’d probably say something like “America is racism.” Not that it’s racist. It’s so racist that racism has become its essential fact.
Any thoughts on this idea?
Slavery disappeared during the middle ages. With the revival of classical values in the Renaissance and Enlightenment slavery was revived (if the classical Romans and Greeks did it, then it must be a good thing).
How can one reconcile the humanism of the enlightment with slavery? One way is the classify one group of individuals as not being fully human -- and therefore not subject to the human rights that the enlightenment advocates.
Slavery disappeared in the Middle ages?
Here’s a rather lengthy wiki page on the thing that didn’t disappear in the Middle Ages.
(Specifically, it’s about medieval Europe as well as portions of Asia, which has to be said since other places in the world also failed to disappear during that time period.)
Slavery has STILL not disappeared to this very day. Prisoners stamping out license plates or “rented” to businesses for pennies per hour is slavery. Heck, that dish of Thai Coconut Shrimp? Slavery is rampant in the Thai fishing industry. The gleaming towers of Dubai? Lots of virtually slavery going on. But yes, I don’t mean to argue at all with the point Marcus is making: Slavery is America. To an extent.
The problem with the concept of “objective truth” (or “neutrality”) is: who gets to decide what is “objective truth”? It’s usually the people in power who get to decide, and they are going to naturally, if perhaps unconsiously, define it in a way that makes them right. And that is what is going to be taught, and how things will be presented in the media, and what will get published (and marketed.) So that people, especially people from the privileged part of society (which I suspect applies to most of the commenters here) are going to assume that the standards of “objective truth” and “neutrality” that they’ve always heard of and been taught must be the One True definition, and that it’s built into the structure of the universe.
IMO, there may or may not be something one could call “objective truth” that isn’t biased in a way that supports the power structure, but I don’t think human beings are capable of finding it. People simply aren’t all that rational, and the people who claim that they’re being “rational” are the worst.
brucegee1962@#13:
they’re probably counting on the teachers being too cowed to test the law, get fired, and sue.
Bingo! Because, they can slow-walk the case and bankrupt anyone who wants to try to test the law.
That’s a problem with having a shitty justice system, they can do tricks like that when they want to, and justice is not done.
Allison: Good points, all. Kudos. I remain nervous about how depending on emotion, one (perhaps unfair) charge about CRT, solves that problem?
Of all the various branches of government, the judicial, while still broken, seems slightly less broken than the others.
I think that the “betting there won’t be a big lawsuit” strategy may be a poor bet, though. While any individual teacher won’t be able to afford the legal battle, there are plenty of organizations like the ACLU with deep pockets that would be all too happy to deep six these laws.
@20 consciousness razor
Agreed “disappeared” was an exaggeration. Slavery declined in Western and Central Europe; from the wiki article “Slavery became increasingly uncommon through the Middle Ages”.
The revival of classical “civilisation” made slavery more acceptable again in Europe.
The main argument is that you can only square stating the “all men are equal” with slavery by denying the humanity of the group of people who are enslaved.
mailliw @ # 26: The revival of classical “civilisation” made slavery more acceptable again in Europe.
Classical schmassical -- the discovery of two continents, and the massive depopulation of same by diseases and metal weaponry (combined with increased access to a third continent whose inhabitants mostly lacked metal weaponry to defend themselves) opened up labor-intensive economic niches where slavery could flourish. The intellectual rationalizations came afterwards.
mailliw, #26:
Yes, that’s part of the first sentence of the article…. Here’s how that sentence ends:
Don’t take this the wrong way, but … did you read anything else on the page? Or did you just feel sort of satisfied/vindicated once you saw that first statement (which by the way is unsupported and unexplained)? Because if you read the rest, it’s not pretty.
Hard to evaluate a claim like that.
Is the concern only about enslaving Christians, which was more generally frowned upon (even if it wasn’t actually made illegal)? Christians became a much larger proportion of the population throughout this entire period, as Christianity spread and replaced a wide array of other local religious traditions. The point is that, mathematically, that by itself could be sufficient for explaining why the practice may have gone into somewhat of a decline for a while, at least in certain parts of Europe.
But then… why shouldn’t it count when the slaves aren’t Christians? I think it obviously should, so for one thing we shouldn’t be fudging the math that we’re going to do above, and of course we still have to put it all into context…. Since the increased interaction between the Christian and Muslim worlds accompanies whatever you mean by “the revival of classical ‘civilization'” during the Renaissance, we don’t have to cook up another ideology to explain a resurgence that may have occurred. It could very well be about the same attitudes that were already there all along, which simply became more relevant/applicable when various sub-populations in this part of the world at that time became less insular and isolated from one another. (Which happened partly because of technological changes, which of course aren’t the same thing as ideological changes.)
Noted. However, the fact is that many people have always acted in ways that aren’t consistent with what they say they believe. That is every bit as true before the Renaissance/Enlightenment periods as it was during them. So if we’re going to make it a fair comparison, we ought to apply the same kind of analysis and criticism to medieval thought. And look, I’ll be the first to admit that there are a few nice things to say about the period, but at the same time, I certainly don’t think it’s going to remain unscathed.
Anyway, I don’t really understand how you’re making a connection between this statement (which is paraphrasing the Declaration of Independence) and whatever was going on in the Middle Ages many centuries earlier. Wasn’t there a whole lot happening in the intervening periods that we should try to understand a little better?
bmiller @24: You can’t help but depend on emotion. Making decisions and judgments is an inherently emotional process. People who are deficient in their emotional aspects have difficulty making even the smallest decision -- they either resort to relying on strict routines or make decisions that are almost random, and can be swayed by almost anything. Most of our rational activity goes towards explaining to ourselves and others decisions we came to intuitively. Now, it is possible to use rationality to convince oneself of a position that is counter-intuitive, but most people, most of the time, are not open to that, and it is very difficult to get people outside one’s own social environment to accept that kind of argument.
Are you claiming that that assertion is true, and not just an expression of your own preferences or ideology? Because if you are, you are depending on the concept of objective truth. If you’re not, why should anyone take it seriously?
@28 consciousness razor
I was just asking what people might think about this hypothesis -- it may not stand up to detailed scrutiny -- that’s why I was asking -- whether I am satisfied or vindicated is entirely beside the point. It doesn’t come from me -- at least not entirely. It comes from Hugh Thomas’ book The Slave Trade -- which in its 952 pages goes into considerably more detail than the wiki page. It is well worth a read if you are interested in the subject -- don’t be put off if you don’t like my gloss on it.
Thomas goes into considerable detail on the moral justifications that were put for and against slavery. There appears to have been a long period of European history when few people regarded it as morally reprehensible.
Why were black Africans sold as slaves rather than white Europeans in the Atlantic slave trade? Have I understood correctly that this is the kind of questions Critical Race Theory is asking?
From the item MS quoted:
Racism wasn’t the only reason for this, profiteering was. Few Black people entered home ownership after WWII due to the racist laws and practices that prevented them from doing the same as white people. This meant decades of money was wasted on rent instead of accumulating wealth as white people did.
It was the banks and property owners who accumulated that wealth instead of Black people. But any talk about reparations for this is labelled “socialism” rather than returning what was stolen from them over the last 70 years.
Intransitive @32:
It’s not at all obvious to me that renting would be necessarily more draining for the renter, and more profitable to other interests, than buying a house. Mortgages, upkeep, property taxes, etc.
Rob Grigjanis @33: Much depends on how fast rent goes up in the local area, as well as what happens to one’s income upon retirement. If you are renting, you have to keep paying forever, and are vulnerable to the local rental market. If you own a home, at some point the mortgage is paid out. Also, in the US it is common to have a constant mortgage payment for the life of the mortgage. This should make it easier as one ages and retires (when most people’s incomes tend to drop).