Posted by 
In an earlier post, I argued that “Systemic or Institutional racism is a situation in which race causes a different level of access to the goods, services, and opportunities of society. The word “systemic” is important because it attaches agency to the “system,” not the individual. Therefore, systemic racism doesn’t imply any level of conscious racism by individuals, or that individuals feel and act on the idea that members of a particular race are inferior. In the United States, “systemic racism” means that blacks and other people of color, are systematically discriminated against. In the post mentioned above, I listed the many, many ways in which blacks face lower outcomes than whites in America. They have lower income, lower wealth, poorer health, lesser education, poorer housing, are murdered more often, and are subject to harsher prison terms. The conclusion is inescapable that systemic or institutional racism is omnipresent in America.
What, then is Critical Race Theory (CRT)? According to anthropologist Khiara Bridges, some key tenets of CRT include:
- “Recognition that race is not biologically real but is socially constructed and socially significant. It recognizes that science (as demonstrated in the Human Genome Project) refutes the idea of biological racial differences. According to scholars Richard Delgado and Jean Stefancic, race is the product of social thought and is not connected to biological reality.
- Acknowledgement that racism is a normal feature of society and is embedded within systems and institutions, like the legal system, that replicate racial inequality. This dismisses the idea that racist incidents are aberrations but instead are manifestations of structural and systemic racism.
- Rejection of popular understandings about racism, such as arguments that confine racism to a few “bad apples.” CRT recognizes that racism is codified in law, embedded in structures, and woven into public policy. CRT rejects claims of meritocracy or “colorblindness.” CRT recognizes that it is the systemic nature of racism that bears primary responsibility for reproducing racial inequality.”
This approach “is often disruptive because its commitment to anti-racism goes well beyond civil rights, integration, affirmative action, and other liberal measures,” the late Harvard law professor Derek Bell explained in 1995. “The theory’s proponents argue that the nation’s sordid history of slavery, segregation, and discrimination is embedded in our laws, and continues to play a central role in preventing Black Americans and other marginalized groups from living lives untouched by racism.” My finding above that systemic racism is omnipresent in America, is very similar to the tenets of CRT.
What is the 1619 project and what is its relationship to CRT? The 1619 Project is an ongoing initiative from The New York Times Magazine that began in August 2019, the 400th anniversary of the beginning of American slavery. It aims to reframe the country’s history by placing the consequences of slavery and the contributions of black Americans at the very center of our national narrative. Just as Critical Race Theory calls for understanding how “racism is central to America’s present, codified in law, embedded in structures and woven into public policy,” the 1619 project invites us to consider, “what it would mean to regard 1619 as our nation’s birth year. Doing so requires us to place the consequences of slavery and the contributions of black Americans at the very center of the story we tell ourselves about who we are as a country.”
Why all the uproar? The political kerfuffle attending both CRT and the 1619 project centers around what role these two reformulations of American history should play in America’s understanding of its story in general, and in school curricula in particular. In their most benign forms CRT and the 1619 project call for a more nuanced understanding of the role of race in American history and society. But there is a less benign and more malignant interpretation. If blacks and other people of color have been and are being victimized in America, then America systematically privileges whites.
Once CRT left the halls of academia it became a political football. Adam Harris, writing in The Atlantic, wrote, “The theory soon stood in for anything resembling an examination of America’s history with race. Conservatives would boil it down further: Critical race theory taught Americans to hate America. Today, across the country, school curricula and workplace trainings include materials that defenders and opponents alike insist are inspired by critical race theory but that academic critical race theorists do not characterize as such.”
Conservatives view CRT as another topic in the “culture wars.” Between June 5, 2020 and May of this year, Fox News invoked the phrase “Critical Race Theory” 150 times. The topic comes up in diversity training and school curricula. Adam Harris began his article with the following “On January 12, Keith Ammon, a Republican member of the New Hampshire House of Representatives, introduced a bill that would bar schools as well as organizations that have entered into a contract or subcontract with the state from endorsing “divisive concepts.” Specifically, the measure would forbid “race or sex scapegoating,” questioning the value of meritocracy, and suggesting that New Hampshire—or the United States—is “fundamentally racist.”
Of course, Donald Trump was ready to pile on. In September 2020, he issued an executive order directing agencies of the United States Government to cancel funding for programs that mention “white privilege” or “critical race theory”, on the basis that it constituted “divisive, un-American propaganda. In a speech on September 17, 2020 Trump decried “critical race theory” and announced the formation of the 1776 Commission [in contrast to the 1619 project] to promote “patriotic education”. The 1776 Commission produced one 41-page unfootnoted report, which among other things, identified “progressivism” and “racism and identity politics” as “challenges to America’s principles” and likened them to “communism,” “slavery,” and “fascism.” It refers to John C. Calhoun as “the leading forerunner of identity politics” and criticizes some aspects of the civil rights movement. The document also describes American universities as “hotbeds of anti-Americanism, libel, and censorship” and criticizes feminist movements. On January 20, 2021 [his first day in Office], President Joe Biden rescinded Trump’s order and dissolved the 1776 Commission.
The most detailed and somewhat deranged critique of CRT comes from The Heritage Foundation. It calls CRT the grandchild of CT and the child of CLT. Lest you get lost in this alphabet soup, CT stands for Critical Theory, which emerged from German Marxist and other philosophical traditions. According to these theorists, a “critical” theory may be distinguished from a “traditional” theory according to a specific practical purpose: a theory is critical to the extent that it seeks human “emancipation from slavery”, acts as a “liberating … influence”, and works “to create a world which satisfies the needs and powers of” human beings. In other words, in both the broad and the narrow senses, a “critical theory” provides the descriptive and normative bases for social inquiry aimed at decreasing domination and increasing freedom in all their forms. This approach to theory makes theory a handmaiden of policy. In this definition, theories are only good to the degree they reduce oppression.
Critical Legal Theory (CLT) is “the idea that the law, because of its historic development and because it is a tool for the rich and the powerful, is dysfunctional and limited. It challenges the very basis of the legal system and process.”
The Heritage Foundation goes on to claim that the thematic components of CRT are:
- “The Marxist analysis of society made up of categories of oppressors and oppressed;
- An unhealthy dollop of Nietzschean relativism, which means that language does not accord to an objective reality, but is the mere instrument of power dynamics;
- The idea that the oppressed impede revolution when they adhere to the cultural beliefs of their oppressors—and must be put through re-education sessions;
- The concomitant need to dismantle all societal norms through relentless criticism; and
- The replacement of all systems of power and even the descriptions of those systems with a worldview that describes only oppressors and the oppressed.”
Before exploring the Heritage Foundation’s claims, it is important to understand what CRT actually is. Adam Harris, whom we met earlier, writes, “The late Harvard law professor Derrick Bell is credited as the father of critical race theory. He began conceptualizing the idea in the 1970s as a way to understand how race and American law interact, and developed a course on the subject. In 1980, Bell resigned his position at Harvard because of what he viewed as the institution’s discriminatory hiring practices, especially its failure to hire an Asian American woman he’d recommended.
“Black students—including the future legal scholar Kimberlé Crenshaw, who enrolled at Harvard Law in 1981—felt the void created by his departure. Bell had been the only Black law professor among the faculty, and in his absence, the school no longer offered a course explicitly addressing race. When students asked administrators what could be done, Crenshaw says they received a terse response. “What is it that is so special about race and law that you have to have a course that examines it?” Crenshaw has recalled administrators asking. The administration’s inability to see the importance of understanding race and the law, she says, “got us thinking about how do we articulate that this is important and that law schools should include” the subject in their curricula?
“Crenshaw and her classmates asked 12 scholars of color to come to campus and lead discussions about Critical Race Theory.”
In the last 25 years CRT has become a target of Republican legislators in states across the country. At least six states have introduced bills that aim to place limitations on lessons about race and inequality being taught in American schools. None of the bills directly mention critical race theory in their text, but the legislators pushing these bills forward have invoked the educational movement while advocating for the legislation. Proponents argue “that the nation’s sordid history of slavery, segregation, and discrimination is embedded in our laws, and continues to play a central role in preventing Black Americans and other marginalized groups from living lives untouched by racism.”
In the Anglo-American tradition a theory is just that, and for decades CRT was mainly an esoteric theoretical discussion held within the walls of law schools. In the 1990s, when President Clinton nominated Lani Guinier, a University of Pennsylvania law professor, to head the Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division, the discussion became political. Republicans ran an ultimately successful campaign against Guinier, charging her, among other things, with championing a school of thought known as “Critical Race Theory.”
Today the battle lines are drawn all across the country. According to Heritage, CRT undergirds the Black Lives Matter “Insurgency” and is responsible for the disciplinary rules in Broward County Florida which limited student contact with the police, which, in turn, is responsible for the deaths of 17 students at Marjorie Stoneman Douglas High School in Florida [!?].
Kiara Alfonseca writes for ABC News, “At least six Republican-majority state legislatures have introduced or implemented restrictions on teaching about racial inequality in schools. These bills — in Tennessee, Texas, Idaho, North Carolina, Oklahoma and Louisiana — include almost the exact same language. Each bill would ban teachers from teaching that ‘one race or sex is inherently superior to another race or sex,’ that ‘an individual, by virtue of the individual’s race or sex, is inherently privileged, racist, sexist or oppressive, whether consciously or subconsciously,’ that “a meritocracy is inherently racist or sexist, or designed by a particular race or sex to oppress members of another race or sex” and that ‘this state or the United States is fundamentally or irredeemably racist or sexist.’”
Diversity training has also become a battlefield. In Iowa, the lines are drawn. Ian Richardson, writing in the Des Moines Register, says, “A bill that awaits Gov. Kim Reynolds’ signature would ban teaching certain concepts, such as that that U.S. is systemically racist, as part of classroom curriculum or diversity training for government employees. The bill’s passage this year comes amid a push among Republican-led statehouses across the country to curb concepts associated with “critical race theory” in schools. Iowa Republicans have said the bill would help prevent concepts associated with critical race theory from appearing in classrooms, but Democrats and other opponents of the bill have said they believe it could have a chilling effect on discussions about racism and sexism.”
CRT and the Church. As one might expect, anything as radical as CRT has provoked controversy in the church. For example, author and pastor John MacArthur says that CRT is the source of “anger, resentment, and vengeful separation” within the Church. In “The Statement of Social Justice and the Gospel,” the authors (including MacArthur) say, “WE DENY that Christian belief, character, or conduct can be dictated by any other authority, and we deny that the postmodern ideologies derived from intersectionality, radical feminism, and critical race theory are consistent with biblical teaching. On the other hand, Kelly Hamren says, “Those who are drawn to CRT are often motivated by a biblically-informed righteous anger—as Pastor Robert Cunningham says in his podcast, “Every Square Inch”, a “zeal to hate what God hates and love what God loves” (7:16-20)—and a justifiable frustration with the church for failing to respond consistently or substantially to racial oppression.” She goes on to say, “The lack of a well-developed theology of race within the evangelical world is a valid cause for concern, so it is understandable for believers to pay attention to and learn from conversations about race, even those taking place in the secular world.”
Recently, the Southern Baptist Convention has been split in two over race, gender and sex abuse. The election of a new SBC president came down to a contest between the Reverend Ed Litton and the Reverend Mike Stone. According to The New York Times, Mr. Stone is part of The Conservative Baptist Network, which “was formed in 2020 to stop what it considers the convention’s drift toward liberalism on matters of culture and theology.” In fact, the Conservative Baptist Network (CBN) has followed many other Christian groups in melding right-wing politics and evangelical Christianity into an unholy witch’s brew. Kate Shellnutt, writing in Christianity Today, describes the role CBN played in the election of the Southern Baptist president. “The race showcased how influential the Conservative Baptist Network had become. As it held events online and in-person over the past year, the group rallied a campaign to get more churches to send messengers to this year’s convention to vote for Stone and push for stronger condemnation of critical race theory. Supporters turned out with stickers that said, “Stop CRT” and “Beat the Biden Baptists.” The pollution of evangelical Christianity with Trumpism was further illustrated on June 18, when former Vice President Mike Pence, speaking at a conservative Christian conference, was met with boos and was forced to speak over hecklers shouting “traitor.”
Conclusions. There is ample evidence to declare that systemic racism pervades American society. Critical Race Theory (CRT) is a theoretical construct that explains how this came about and what it means today. The 1619 Project is an attempt to write history with black Americans at the center (Thus,1619 not 1776 is the nation’s birth year. Some of the major conclusions of CRT, including the pervasiveness of systemic racism and conversely of “white privilege” raise difficult issues about American society, and have become politically controversial, particularly with respect to school curricula and diversity programs. All too often the political argument takes place in a fact-free space, and few of its critics can accurately describe CRT. Race is a difficult topic to discuss in America today, and the politicization of CRT brings us no closer to bridging or even understanding our differences.