Being a long time electronic repair guy, my first thought on the topic was, “CRT? Cathode Ray Tube? What’s so controversial? Why not just transition to flat screens for television enjoyment?” With all the uproar over it, I figured the acronym was actually something related to the social justice universe. CRT, as it has come to be wildly used in headlines means Critical Race Theory.
I’ve read articles from the conservative side, trying to make sense of the claims of injustice, race reconciliation, and logic that makes no sense at all. Is the right wing crowd freaking out over nothing?
I’ve read articles from the progressive side, outlining the nature of systemic racism and why skin color matters. There are follow up articles, wondering what’s wrong with conservatives. Why are they trying to ban CRT in schools? Don’t they understand that CRT is an advanced legal framework beyond the level of school kids? , Besides, how will we teach kids about racial diversity without it’s core tenants?
Here’s a shocker, diversity and race relations have been taught very well for decades without the CRT framework. Not only that, it has been done with a lot less explosive racial tension.
My examination of the topic will run into a series of articles, so first up, here’s a quick introduction to some of the background and problems CRT tries to address.
In the social justice world there are factions to gain equality of outcome for women and for the complicated community of homosexuals and the confusing topic of gender identity. CRT actually goes back to the race issues of the civil rights movement of the 1960s,
Through the decades, many victories have been won. The right to vote for women and abolishing slavery were huge milestones, but weren’t enough. Women fought for more equal footing in the workplace. As for sexual and gender issues, the goal posts for equality demands seem to always be moving, but that isn’t the topic at hand. The civil rights movement fought to bring the oppressive Jim Crow era to an end and more opportunity for Americans of color.
Doesn’t the US constitution already promise justice and liberty for all? Doesn’t it promise life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? It indeed promises equal opportunity in the phrase, “pursuit of happiness.” There is no guarantee of happiness, an equal outcome. There is the guarantee that all people start with the same options and opportunity to succeed.
America is a place where you can start with nothing, and rise to the top rungs of success. It’s also a place for utter failure for those who either can’t, don’t or won’t take advantage of opportunity in our system of government.
Social justice demands equal outcome, elevating a downtrodden group to a place of honor and worth. . preferably at the same level as those who have achieved a level of social status. The good news of the civil rights movement is that equal rights were legislated for all… but it wasn’t enough. Laws move slowly. Laws only mandate the outward appearance of equal treatment. Certainly for many, equality and racial justice was real. Equal opportunity and liberty is freely extended, and those who use those opportunities excel.
Why the uproar over CRT, equal outcome and racial reconciliation? The problem is the kind of equality that people desire is based in morality from the heart. Outward action can be legislated, but morality from the heart can’t be forced so easily, and there remains some out there who dig into the comforts and supremacy of their race.
Morality demands a moral source, but in a society where moral and religious codes are shunned, an answer is looked for in the highest authority, the government. Since proponents of CRT claim the current framework of viewing race is broken and inadequate, everything about it needs to be challenged and torn apart. The problem is that nobody ever [presents a replacement system, and the kind of equilibrium suggested in equal outcome resembles a Marxist form of government.
CRT is a legal framework. It offers a core structure, and allows organizations to hang things on it to flesh it out. Two of its core tenants are:
1. Racism is the norm, not the exception, and everything in life passes through a lens of racism.
2. It’s not about justice, but in correcting past wrongs of society. Its about the power struggle to end up on top.
The word “critical” implies a logical examination of issues. Judging from some of the outcomes of these ideologies found in headlines, there is a lot of presupposition, and very little logic applied. Summarized from a Wikipediae article, here are some of CRT ideologies, you decide if they make sense:
• liberalism. As it affects race relations, this includes challenging and examining effectiveness of legal equality, rationalism, the effectiveness of the constitution, and even the equality won by the civil rights movement. Because equality of outcome is diverse, and racism exists, all founding documents and laws are full of racism.
• Story telling. Meaning subjective experience matters over objective reasoning. Where logic, science and knowledge differ from the racist claim, the subjective experience of the oppressed trumps truth.
• Revisionist history. This especially relates too critique of civil rights laws and discrimination issues. It supports claims that the 1619 project is true, while the founding of the USA in 1776 is false. A matter that flies in the face of higher level historical criticism and textual criticism.
• Intersectionality. Examining factors of victimhood. Race, gender, disability, etc. the equitable outcome for the oppressed. The more points of victimhood you can claim the more weight your voice carries in racial discussion.
• Standpoint epistemology. Meaning a victim is the only authority who can express an opinion on their victimhood. If you’re not black, you have no right to discuss race.
• Essentialism vs. anti-essentialismmeaning that only blacks have a right to a voice. However, within the victim community, not all have the same needs. Who has the right to speak for the community, for the sub-group? Who are ”Uncle Toms” and deserve to be ignored.
• Structural determinism. This has to do with equal outcomes, righting wrongs, identifying unforgiveable wrongs. It’s about gaining power over the other side, and punishing them.
• Empathetic fallacy. Being empathetic is never enough. Oppressors will never be diverse enough to understand racial narrative. The black man can neverr trust the white man, since he is only empathizing for what it can gain him.
• Separatism. Argues for segregation and reparations.
Remember that first tenant? Racism is the norm, not the exception. This is where institutional, or systemic racism comes in. The CRT framework claims it’s the norm and sometimes even the legal system is designed with different laws for different races. Every one has prejudice. Acting on those prejudices is the definition of discrimination. Even if an individual manages to overcome their personal prejudice, they enjoy the comfort of the system. A system that is by design, set to tip the scales in favor of one race over another.
Some questions to answer are, which laws actually keep the powerful in power? Which laws actually deny benefit to those in need of education, housing, livelihood and so forth? Which laws actually have a separate set of rules for a different race?
Since the name CRT has exploded onto the scene, it often gets disguised by going under other names or by one or more of its components. Its ideologies get boiled down to simple terms that can be, and are consumed by children. So it is indeed being taught to kids.
Should parents and society at large be concerned over the tenants of CRT? If its just a better way to teach about race relations, or equality, what’s the big deal?
Certainly, if there is doubt about the system, examine it. Laws are reviewed all the time. Congressmen and Representatives enact laws. Laws are enforced by the police. Lawyers and judges determine whether a person has broken a law. Law breakers face fines or imprisonment. This is how governments work. If using logical, critical and impartial means, test the system and find out whether it’s good or not.
There’s more than legal infractions in intruding on the rights of another person involved. Real heights of success is in the opportunities in society. In the resources for a person to learn, develop a skill or talent. To make your mark on the world in a good way. Is there racial barriers in society? Possibly. Probably. People are flawed, and even the best framework leaves plenty of room for people to mistreat someone who is different, or find comfort in those who are like minded. Social protocol is an area that the legal system can find hard to legislate and enforce. It falls more into the area of morality. Religion is the stronghold of teaching morality, and with the fervor of some proponents of CRT, it is being pushed with the zeal of a cult.
Keep in mind, it’s a legal framework. Start by holding it up to the top laws of the land. The Declaration of Independence, the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Where do any of these discriminate based on race? They do not. Also if CRT is a legal framework, how does it expect to make changes in the social and moral realm?
There have been advances for years that have built bridges in social protocol, but with the forceful attempts through the violence and looting of so-called peaceful protests, much of that good will is eroding fast. ’
Stay tuned for more observation on systemic racism, before addressing how CRT is flawed in its logic, and some of the controversy in the way it gets pressed into social and racial issues.