Critical Race Theory: What is it, and why do they hate it?

First of all, let me tell you that Critical Race Theory is a weird obsession for school board candidates.

The anti-Critical Race Theory candidates have been abbreviating it to CRT. I saw another candidate asked about CRT; she asked if they meant "culturally relevant teaching". That would be a much more normal conversation for schools. I am glad that it was the first thing that came to mind for her.

Just to get it out of the way, "culturally relevant teaching" -- which may also be called "culturally congruent", culturally responsive", "culturally compatible", or "culturally acceptable" teaching -- is about understanding the cultural background of all of the students so that they can be included in the lesson and taught effectively. Most of what I have seen on it was specifically relevant to teaching indigenous youth in Canada (that was in a book on linguistics).

Since Culturally Relevant Teaching is still about understanding differences and trying to help all students, those who are against Critical Race Theory would probably not be big fans of Culturally Relevant Teaching. Regardless, someone studying education would be far more likely to come across the latter. 

Critical Race Theory is more likely to come up in law school. It is a study of how the law intersects with issues of race. 

One area for criticism is mainstream liberal approaches to racial justice. Of course, in this case "liberal" refers to the traditional meaning of based on Enlightenment values of inalienable individual rights. Many traditional Enlightenment thinkers were quite racist -- not all all surprising for the time period -- but it leaves merely going by their values to be inadequate as a way of achieving equal representation before the law.

(If it were merely about criticizing liberals, this slate of candidates would be all about Critical Race Theory.)

Critical Race Theory has origins in the 70s, coming shortly after the Civil Rights Movement of the '60s.

With the legislation that was passed, including the Voting Rights Act and the Fair Housing Act and the Civil Rights Act, you could look at the law not being enough, or you could look at how many people immediately started fighting against the new laws and trying to reverse them (which may explain why they weren't enough). Regardless, it led to a new field of study, and part of that is examining the roots of our country's racism.

Some of the most prominent names at the start of Critical Race Theory are Derrick Bell, former dean of the University of Oregon Law School; Richard Delgado, expert on hate speech who coauthored many things with his wife, Jean Stefancic; Mari Matsuda, the first tenured Asian-American professor in the United States; and Patricia Williams and Charles Lawrence.

Another name that frequently comes up is Kimberlé Crenshaw, known for her work on intersectionality. One of her inspirations was the case DeGraffenreid v. General Motors, where there were jobs that white women could get, and jobs that Black men could get, and yet the discrimination against Black women was not recognized.

So, Critical Race Theory is very much a legal discipline, and not something that will be taught in your local school district. However, because it is also a way of looking deeper at the influence of racism, and how it works systemically, having people who care about it makes it harder to approve text books that consider chattel slavery just another form of immigration, and really not that bad.

Do we still have to pretend that slavery was not that bad? Do we have to accept that genocide against Native Americans was fine because of Manifest Destiny?

Because the one candidate keeps saying that Critical Race Theory gives white kids bad self-esteem, and in another district, one candidate is against Critical Race Theory because it goes against Dr. King's dream of judging people by the content of their character instead of the color of their skin.

Dr. King would know you were a clown, sir. He would probably say it more nicely. Maybe.

In this time of increased violence against Asian-Americans and continuing police brutality, especially against African Americans and increasingly caught on tape, I do not want anyone who is against understanding the dark currents in our society and working to fix them making any decisions about what goes on in schools. I don't even want them choosing the lunch menu.

When white people began to learn about their privilege, there frequently is discomfort. It only becomes a part of your self-image when you decide that you are fine with it.

None of us should be fine with that.

But there are people who love the racism, and there are people who are comfortable enough with it as long as they don't have to think about it. Those are the only people who have any reason to be against Critical Race Theory. 

They may misrepresent that, and they may get very offended when you say that, but whether they are not willing to do the work to understand their platform, or whether they are blithely choosing racism, keep them off of the school boards.

This is for everyone.