A response to the latest fad--the attacks on CRT...

As one that has called himself a critical race scholar decades before it was the ire conservatives, instead of the subject of scorn, such a label is in fact a badge of honor. Indeed, the slew of baseless attacks on CRT should be laughable, if they were not so dangerous. I suspect, or shall I say dread, we will soon learn of a CRT scholar personally attacked by some ill-informed yet headline-focused politician. What I find humorous is the narrative that CRT being used to indoctrinate "our children." Hmmm???? CRT is taught in law school seminars and perhaps some other upper-level graduate school classes or maybe an upper-level seminar at certain universities (I have not found any such course at the undergraduate level, but I add the possibility here out of an excess of caution). The attacks on CRT, like the one in my home state of Florida, which bans CRT being taught in K-12 is powerful tool to silence accurate teaching of history, and is in fact what conservatives believe will be a battle cry for the next election cycle (facts be damned), especially when one realizes CRT is NOT taught in K-12 classes.

It's ironic that those that champion liberty and freedom, often while hugging the flag, are attempting to, through misguided and inaccurate claims, ban freedom of thought, debate, and intellectual engagement. Unlike the portrayals by those who appear to be ramping up their presidential bids, it is not a basic tenet of CRT to hate anyone or group of people, despite Ted Cruz's claims to the contrary.  Simply put, CRT is anti-subordination scholarly movement that seeks to address history in an accurate and honest fashion. Specifically, CRT seeks to expose the impact of structural racism throughout this country's past, by examining, among others, events such as slavery, Japanese internment, and more recently Family Separation. 

In a recent powerful essay in the Salon entitled, Fighting Back Against the Age of Manufactured Ignorance: Resistance Is Still Possible, Henry Giroux forcefully argues for the need to challenge the attacks against CRT. In one of his more poignant observations, Giroux states, " [i]n this updated version of historical and racial cleansing, the call for racial justice is equated to a form of racial hatred, leaving intact the refusal to acknowledge, condemn and confront in the public imagination the history and tenacity of racism in American society." Ultimately, Giroux, unlike those using their attacks to frame themselves as some sort of thought police, accurately describes "[t]he underlying message of CRT is to dismantle forms of structural racism in order to create a more fair and just society." He further observes, CRT is far from an effort to teach that  "America is systemically evil and that the hearts of our people are full of hatred and malice." In that light, one should unquestionably be proud to be a CRT scholar--a title perhaps some only feel they merit after writing dozens of law review articles and several books. Yes, it is possible to be a CRT scholar and passionately love this country, serve it, and even find systems like socialism and communism to be historical failures. One is not unpatriotic by addressing and teaching history accurately. Indeed, as James Baldwin observed, “I love America more than any other country in the world and, exactly for this reason, I insist on the right to criticize her perpetually.” While some like myself might temper the point with respect to "perpetually," isn't that the point and power of CRT---not all that examine history must agree---much like Ted Cruz and Liz Cheney assuredly differ a great deal--is one of them thus un-American?

Another important display of the a defense of CRT is worth mentioning: a podcast by the Federalist Society featured a host of CRT detractors and one defender: Professor Daria Roithmayr. For those interested in the CRT debate, this podcast is a must-listen-to event: worth every second. Despite the lopsided numbers, I won't assert Professor Roithmayr wiped the floor with the baseless attacks and characterizations of CRT---oh heck, why change now, of course I am going to say it: she crushed them! By the way, Dan Rodriguez, a self-described federalist, did a fine job as well. Take a few minutes to listen to the podcast--incredibly informative and an utterly masterful display of advocacy by Professor Roithmayr. 

One point of contention: why is it that the bulk the characterizations both against and for a movement created by scholars of color are made by those that are not "of color." I have read dozens of attacks on CRT by white men, or at least those that seem to characterize themselves as white. But somewhat surprisingly, most of the defenses of CRT I have read are written by those that are not one of its founders? Why do we not hear more from a CRT founder like Richard Delgado, the legal academy's most prolific scholar (a fact I point out to my students every semester, and a statement that is met with looks of surprise by many of my students, with a few displaying pride upon hearing his last name). Why do we not have leading talk shows and news programs that discuss CRT seek guidance from Kimberle Crenshaw, another CRT founder and developer of a staple of legal and political discourse: interest convergence theory? I am certain Crenshaw and Delgado could do a much better job than my defense here (though I thank Richard Delgado for referring several international reporters to me. I have tried mightily, though likely unpersuasively, to channel them when taking these interviews). When asked about CRT, I often respond by asking the reporters: how often do you recall learning of Japanese internment while growing up? How about the family separation of indigenous children? Or century-long struggle for women's suffrage? These are all CRT efforts: to educate us about our past, not only to avoid repeating its wrongs, but also to not silence important parts of our history with a specific goal towards making us a more just society. Alas, another indispensable value of diversity. 

 

Comments

[Bobert McRobertson]

I count precisely zero answers to any of my questions, anon. And I think they are pretty straightforward questions given the weird level of alarm over oOoGy BoOoGiE sUpEr ScArY cRiTiCaL rAcE tHeOrY.

But maybe you're right. For example, I don't have the slightest clue what you mean, specifically, when you refer to the "foundational notions of a society," nor am I aware of any efforts whatsoever to destroy them somehow, whatever they are.

Perhaps you can help me. I repeat one of my questions from above, with a couple of follow ups: Who, specifically, is teaching anyone that some races are inherently racist and evil? Any actual evidence whatsoever that this is some kind of widespread problem? Or is all this stuff just made up nonsense?

I'm pretty sure we all know the answer to that last one.

[anon]

Does socialism now mean that others must do your homework for you, Bobby McGee?

[Bobert McRobertson]

Got it. Making stuff up. Thanks for confirming.

[Anon]

Bobert, I bet you really do take that to constitute a bona fide confirmation, rather than your merely engaging in schoolyard rhetorical tactics. And I bet you also think you're a mature, professional scholar engaged in the pursuit of truth and justice too, don't you? :)

[Bobert McRobertson]

I am not the one making the claim that students are being taught that some races are inherently racist and evil. Extraordinary claims, such as that one, require extraordinary evidence.

But you have come up with a grand total of nothing. Not even a single, isolated case, much less something suggesting some sort of widespread problem. Nor anything connecting such issues - were they to exist, which they do not - to CRT.

Absolutely nothing.

You don't need to be a scholar of any kind to see that. Not that you really believe what you're saying anyway.

[Bobert McRobertson]

OhHhHhH nOoOoOoOo CrItIcAl RaCe ThEoRy Is GoInG tO dEsTrOy ThE fOuNdAtIoNaL NoTiOnS oF a SoCiEtY tHrOuGh uNsPeCiFiEd AnD pUrElY iMaGiNaRy MeAnS!

[Bobert McRobertson]

Anyway, as a mature, professional scholar, I shall now retire from our discussion. Mature, professional scholarship awaits.

[anon]

Here are some resources for those who are oblivious to the newer versions of CRT, or who claim that these versions of "CRT" do not identify as a problem any particular "race" or falsely claim that these advocates are not pressing for widespread "teaching" of their views:

https: [//] nmaahc [dot] si [dot] edu/learn/talking-about-race/topics/whiteness

https: [//] www [dot] aei [dot] org/op-eds/theres-some-truth-in-those-bizarre-charts-about-whiteness/

Hey, Bobert, do you agree that "Facing [one's] whiteness is hard and can result in feelings of guilt, sadness, confusion, defensiveness, or fear"?

Of course you do, Bobert. "Whiteness" is shameful, is it not?