The reemergence of critical race theory (CRT) has been making headlines in the news…but what exactly is it? On a surface level, CRT represents the idea that racism is deeply rooted in the law, its policies, and by proxy, various social institutions. The concept has resurfaced recently amongst schools throughout the United States, both indicative of the country’s revitalized push for racial equality through education as well as the tense political environment in place.
The essentials of CRT were first introduced by Derrick Bell during the early 1970s through the 1980s and expanded on by many other legal scholars, notably Kimberle Crenshaw and Richard Delgado. The scrutiny of the legal system and its implications for different races (particularly the distinctions between White and Black) began with Harvard Law School, where Bell became the first Black professor ever to receive tenure there. Upon his departure from Harvard, students and faculty continued to question and criticize school curriculums and the inherent elements of racism in law that were never covered in class. A small but significant example is that of The First Amendment’s promotion of “free speech” in America, which does not actually include all kinds of speech, contrary to popular opinion. Defamation, true threats, and use of obscenity when broadcasting are just a few of many forms of speech that the First Amendment condemns. However, verbal racial attacks and hate speech are left unprotected and considered too trivial to be exempt from free speech.
There are subtler ways that policies are disadvantageous for non-White students as well. Legacy admissions to schools are just another example of something seemingly small but incredibly impactful, as such admissions have a snowball effect on a minority group’s economic success in life. Legacy admissions disproportionately favor White students (more than 90% of legacy admits are White), just one of various factors that contribute to the hurdles nonwhite students must overcome to reach the same level of distinction. This does not stop at an education level either–for Black people in particular, it is incredibly difficult to overcome the economic disadvantages they are born into, and one of the only opportunities available to surpass these disadvantages is through education and university, in the hopes that success there will set them up for a more fruitful career. Even once they secure a job, high paying or not, climbing up the ladder in the corporate world is that much more difficult than it is for their White counterparts, and so the simple action of favoring legacy students may edge out deserving non-White students and rob them of a first step in their journey to overcome the economic hardships of systemic racism. When taking all of this into account, the need for CRT to be implemented in K-12 education systems seems imperative, an effort to increase awareness and hopefully effect change with the new generation. The progressive nature of society as time goes on suggests that critical race theory would receive greater support in the present day, but the backlash against it is far more notable at the moment, presenting us with the question: Why is critical race theory facing criticism and why now?
Looking into the minutia of critical race theory is partly where the controversy stems, as the definitions around its tenets and finer details tend to be a bit murky. Conservatives and liberals alike feel as though it is, in fact, a divisive concept driving races apart, especially through portraying White people strictly as racist oppressors. Building off of this divisiveness, people may begin sacrificing individual identities for racial groups, eroding at the nation’s efforts to encourage a strong, united sense of identity and togetherness using universal themes. Additionally, proponents and scholars of CRT believe race is a social construct, an ideology often confused with “colorblindness.” Colorblindness is a method used to ignore racial discrimination on the basis of being “blind” to race, or “color,” whereas CRT, in reality, recognizes distinctions in physical features and attributes between people of varying ethnicities but does not choose “race” as a classifying term. Critics of colorblindness tend to be critics of CRT as well because they equate CRT’s rejection of race as a classification with being blind or ignorant of race’s existence.
Furthermore, there is controversy surrounding reactions and proposed solutions to racial inequalities in the law. For example, affirmative action for colleges was introduced, which is a policy constructed to allow underrepresented groups into elite colleges through imposing quotas and implementing goals for the number of admitted students per race. But while this effectively fulfills the ideology CRT advocates for, combatting a legal system configured to keep non-Whites down, it is also sacrificing the quality of students and lowering the standard, which has bigger implications for our education system as a whole, beyond race. The most sensitive idea that CRT poses, however, is one that pits American national pride against the harsh racist realities of everyday life: the notion that racism is entrenched in American society, to the point where lawmakers do not have to harbor racist sentiment for the law to be, ultimately implying that the country was founded on racist principles and continues to exist on them.
The controversy has only been exacerbated by the Black Lives Matter Movement post-death of George Floyd, who’s murder introduced CRT to the public eye with a newfound urgency. Police, as the face of the supposedly neutral, objective law, are meant to protect and preserve peace, not disrupt it, and George Floyd’s murder was only one of countless events where the law has failed Black and other non-White people. But when faced with this, the Trump Administration elected to bar “any training that suggested the United States was fundamentally racist,” using CRT as the epitome of such “training.” So far, eight states have banned CRT in K-12 education through legislation, those being Idaho, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas, Iowa, New Hampshire, Arizona, and South Carolina. Other states have taken verbal stances against CRT and prohibited it from influencing their current school curriculums. This reflects a newfound fear amongst Americans; it cannot appear in any way as though the United States is itself racist.
Systemic racism being at the core of the United States is a threat to everything the country stands for constitutionally– freedom, social harmony, and equal rights. Unfortunately, it may also be the reality.