What is Critical Race Theory (CRT)?
A destructive ideology
One of
the most controversial topics of our day is Critical
Race Theory or CRT. It is taught in many of our
schools, institutions of higher learning,
corporations, governmental agencies and private
institutions. Those who advocate for CRT claim it
necessary to remediate America's history of racism
and injustice. Their stated goal for racial justice
is to bring "real change" in order to eliminate inequities in
society. While CRT has been around for a significant
amount of time, the promotion of CRT has accelerated
since the death of George Floyd at the hands of
police in
Minneapolis. While the desire to eliminate equities
in society comes across as admirable, the devil is
always in the details. The reality of CRT
is
quite
frightening.
Critical Race Theory is actually a racist ideology that is falsely promoted as a peer reviewed scholarly theory. Advocates openly lie about what it is and what it is not. It is no different that any other racist ideology or viewpoint promoted by hate groups and racial supremists. It is being used to divide Americans based on race, class and religious belief. Dressing up hate and redefining it will not change what it actually is, bigotry. There must be one standard for all people or there is no standard at all. The difference between right and wrong is not a complicated theory for a rational prudent person. Thus an abstract discussion of CRT is one thing but promoting the tenants of CRT in the classroom or workplace would violate the law under the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution and various civil rights laws.
Critical Race Theory is the end product of a evolving ideology known as Communism. In Karl Marx's Critique of Ideology, he asserts that systems such as capitalism perpetuate a false belief that workers created the system by their hard work when in fact an oppressive society forced the system upon the workers. Sociologists from the Frankfort School in the 1930's further refined their body of thought pertaining to social change as Critical Theory. Beginning in the 1970's, William Bell, a Professor at Harvard University began promoting Critical Legal Theory which addressed his views related to racial inequities in the legal system. After the publication of his book in 1973, "Race, Racism and American Law", Bell began to articulate a new ideology, Critical Race Theory. Over time, CRT began to take hold in progressive academia with notable socialist thinkers such as Alan Freeman, Kimberle Crenshaw, Richard Delgado and Cheryl Harris.
CRT seeks to
demonize the entire white race and labels all whites
as oppressors and non-whites as the oppressed. It
goes so far as to assert that whites are born
racists. As shown, it is rooted in Marxism and seeks to divide
society based on race. The so-called theory is
Orwellian in construct. It also claims that all
institutions public and private are guilty of
institutional or systemic racism based on the
dominant culture or “whiteness”. The CRT acolyte
Abraim X. Kendi left no doubt as to the reality of
CRT’s racist ideology with the following quote; “The
only remedy to racist discrimination is anti-racist
discrimination. The only remedy to
past discrimination is present discrimination. The
only remedy to present discrimination is future
discrimination.”
CRT seeks to separate people based solely on their ancestry and their membership of a racial group rather than treating each person as an individual. While there is debate surrounding the definition of social justice, the question is, What defines social justice? The promotion of a racist ideology targeting a specific racial group in order to achieve a racial spoils system or equity is not social justice but rather racism.
The current state of
jurisprudence relies on the principal of equal
opportunity not equal outcome or equity as defined
under CRT. This distinction was recently tested by
the federal courts upon the enactment of the
American Rescue Plan Act of 2021. The law attempted
to utilize equity in the application of debt relief
to farmers and grants for small businesses. Equity
was soundly rejected. Ironically the law helps to
exemplify the distinction of actual institutional or
systemic racism versus false claims of pervasive
systemic racism.
In the matter of Wynn v.
Vilsack 2021, the court held that a program that
targeted debt relief to farmers based on a
race-based qualification that excluded whites was
unlawful nor were any race neutral alternatives
considered. The ruling noted that the program was
not narrowly tailored to correct or remedy any
specific instance of past discrimination. A previous
effort by the government to justify race-based only
programs by claiming statistical disparities was
deemed “administrative convenience” by the 11th
Circuit and rejected.
The second case Vitolo, Jake’s Bar and Grill, LLC v. Guzma, Administrator of the Small Business Administration, 2021 held that a Covid relief program that targeted relief to small businesses using race and sex qualifications was unlawful. The program specifically provided grants to priority applicants only. The applicants were restaurants that were at least 51% owned and controlled by women, veterans, or the “socially and economically disadvantaged”. Under the Small Business Administration (SBA), the law referenced the definition of social and economic disadvantage as defined by the Small Business Act. In particular, as noted in the decision, “Under the Small Business Act, a person is considered “socially disadvantaged” if he has been “subjected to racial or ethnic prejudice” or “cultural bias” based solely on his immutable characteristics. 15 U.S.C. § 637(a)(5); 13 C.F.R. § 124.103(a). A person is considered “economically disadvantaged” if (1) he is socially disadvantaged; and (2) he faces “diminished capital and credit opportunities” compared to non-socially disadvantaged people who operate in the same industry. 15 U.S.C. § 637(a)(6)(A)”.
The SBA relief program
did not require an actual showing of racial, ethic
discrimination or cultural bias from Black,
Hispanic, Asian-Pacific or Native American
applicants but did require proof from white
applicants. The court held that government policies
that classify people by race are presumptively
invalid. Furthermore, the government’s claim of
societal discrimination against minority business
owners was insufficient as they failed to provide
specific incidents of past discrimination, provided
no evidence of past intentional discrimination,
failed to show the government itself participated in
the discrimination they sought to remedy and even if
proof of discrimination was shown, the program was
not narrowly tailored nor did it seek a race neutral
alternative.
Martin Luther-King fought
for a color-blind society where a person “will not
be judged by the color of their skin, but by the
content of their character.” In regard to CRT, men
are judged by the color of their skin without
respect to their character. He made it very clear as
to his resolve in fighting for equality not equity.
MLK actually addressed racial supremacy in a
balanced way, "Black supremacy is as dangerous as
white supremacy, and God is not interested merely in
the freedom of black men and brown men and yellow
men…., "God is interested in the freedom of the
whole human race and the creation of a society where
all men will live together as brothers, and all men
will respect the dignity and the worth of all human
personality."
While there are many differing views on how to reach a truly color-blind society and racial unity, the discussion of race can often be controversial. That in of itself is understandable. The discussion can also involve differing ideologies with some more outside the mainstream than others. That is often the struggle between critical thinking and academic freedom. It is one thing to have conflicting ideologies, opinions in the class room and quite another to promote racial hostility/bigotry toward a particular racial group. The same applies to the workplace.
In CRT, the mere act of expressing “whiteness” is promoting white supremacy. When a member of the white race is confronted for their “white supremacy”, any reaction without contrition and acknowledgment of one’s in bred racism is defined as “White Fragility" (from the book White Fragility by Robin DiAngelo). Thus, there will always be a perpetual cycle of acknowledgment and sorrow often stymied by the inherent racism of the white race. Therefore, white people will never reach a state of antiracist nirvana.
As CRT defines whiteness as "the specific dimensions of racism that serve to elevate white people over people of color", it therefore concludes that one's skin color also awards white privilege. CRT defines privilege as a "unearned social power accorded by the formal and informal institutions of society to all members of a dominant group." Thus irregardless of one's socio-economic status, education, trials or adversity, having white skin is all that matters in defining who is a racist.
While straining to cast all human actions as motivated by a racial or ethnic animus, CRT even claims unintentional actions are also subconsciously driven by hatred. The term is called a micro-aggression and is defined as "a statement, action, or incident regarded as an instance or indirect, subtle, or unintentional discrimination against members of a marginalized group such as a racial or ethic minority". The problem with this novel clam is the lack of any objective standard. Thus even an awkward facial gesture or an act of rudeness can be construed as a micro-aggression. Obviously these types of claims are highly subjective, put a specific racial group in a social straight jacket and are non enforceable as a matter of law. It is another example of the racial absurdity of CRT.
One of the most important concepts of equal opportunity and the lawful basis for which government enforces equality for all is the application of color blindness. Yet those who promote Critical Race Theory outright reject color blindness and instead look for color and ethnicity in all interactions. They believe American principles such as individualism and self reliance do not apply to everyone so focusing on color and ethnicity will bring much needed attention to systemic racism. Going further, they extol the virtues of self segregation and segregation in other forms. That would include separate college dorms, graduation ceremonies based on race, educational events that exclude whites and governmental programs that benefit specific racial groups. The hypocrisy speaks for itself.
The claim of systemic racism within all of America's institutions both public and private are quite specious. Looking at numbers alone without any other data or the story behind the numbers is insufficient to sustain a claim of discrimination in of itself. Looking at police shootings in particular, 1004 people who were armed were shot by police in 2019. Out of the total, 235 were black. Of those who were shot while unarmed, 19 were white and 9 were black and the number has been on the decline since 2015. Even though blacks make up 13% of the population, they were involved in more than half of all murders and robberies in 2018. When reviewing other areas of society, while racism does exist on an individual basis, there has been no significant finding of systemic racism by state and federal agencies.
While there is academic freedom, racial hostility and bigotry couched in a discredited ideology crosses a well-established bright line. Compliance training by business in order to ensure a work place free of racial and ethnic discrimination applies to all racial and ethnic groups equally. Training that adversely labels or denigrates a person based on their race, color or creed is unlawful and creates a hostile work environment. The notion that discrimination can be justified in the name of social justice is just as irrational as any other form of racial or ethnic discrimination. The Fourteenth Amendment guarantees equal protection and trumps the irrationality of CRT.
Some have even tried to use the
Bible as justification for bigotry under Liberation
Theory and CRT. Christ’s teaching on race was very
clear. In the book of John 4:1-42 Jesus talks about
his encounter with a Samaritan woman in Samaria by
the well in the town of Sychar. Jews of the day did
not associate with the Samaritan race especially
females yet Jesus asked her for a drink, discussed
her sins and told her he was there to offer her
Living Water or what is known as salvation. His
action of love was instructive. The Bible further
attests to God’s love for all in the famous verse,
John 3:16, “For God so loved the world, that he gave
his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in
him should not perish, but have everlasting life.”
The Bible makes it clear that God does not respect
class, creed or color in Romans 2:11-16, “For there
is no respect of persons with God.” Galatians 3:28
leaves no doubt about God’s love and unity, “There
is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor
free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are
all one in Christ Jesus.”
While many promoters of Critical Race Theory maintain CRT is rationally based, why are they hesitant about testing their beliefs in the public arena? All across the country, people have rejected the hatred and racism promoted by Critical Race Theory. The people of the state of Virginia rejected the pernicious ideology at the ballot box. Every school district, college and business entity will need to reflect on how any rational person could defend bigotry and hatred while claiming they are trying to eliminate the every conduct their engaged in.
While the use of race can be
considered as one of many factors in the admissions
process, segregation of students by race in the
classroom is unlawful. While a particular paradigm
may not involve physical segregation, it can involve
a more insidious form of racial segregation
involving the use of CRT to separate students by
race. This is achieved by labeling each student
based on race as either an oppressor or the
oppressed and denigration of their culture based on
race. To wit, all white students are oppressors with
their entire culture i.e. “whiteness” as a form of
evil as compared to all non-white students who are
the oppressed and who possess a culture that is
superior as it is not construed as evil. To state
that these actions create a hostile educational
environment based on racial hostility and bigotry is
an understatement.
The legal standard a court would apply would be strict scrutiny as it relates to racial segregation, unequal treatment based on race and or creating a racially hostile environment in the classroom or at work. Even though there is a distinction between a public and private entity which may give a private religious college has more latitude when it comes to certain forms of speech, all private entities are not exempt from the 1964 Civil Rights Act as it relates to race under Title VI and under Title IX as it relates to sex. If there are actions that are found to be deliberate and intentional as it relates to racial discrimination, a private right of action exists under Section 1983 for redress as schools and colleges receive federal funds. Businesses are covered under Title VII. Furthermore, administrative remedies are also available such as filing a complaint requesting an investigation into a claim of racial discrimination.
In conclusion, Critical Race Theory has no place in our society and should remain in fringe of racial extremism and bigotry. It must be exposed and rejected along with those who promote hatred. Every person has the right to be judged by the content of their character not the color of their skin, their ethnicity or their sex. Know your rights and don't back down. Objectivity, morality and the law are on your side. Together we will ensure that our schools, colleges and businesses adhere to equal opportunity for all.