A tug of war is playing out in state legislatures over whether to restrict the teaching of critical race theory. Opponents argue it sows division and promotes intolerance.
Supporters of the idea argued that it is not anti-American to recognize how institutional racism permeates society and how its legacy lives on through facially race-blind policies like single-family zoning, which keeps many black families out of favored neighborhoods.
Origins
As the term suggests, critical race theory examines laws and institutions to determine how they reflect social conceptions of race. It is a lens that allows legal scholars and civil-rights activists to see how racial issues are often hidden or buried under a surface cover but are still very real. Republicans have criticized CRT, which they call “divisive concepts,” as an attempt to rewrite American history and make white people feel guilty about their advantages.
In the 1970s and ’80s, legal scholars began developing the foundation for critical race theory. They were dismayed that civil rights victories in the courts had not led to a fundamental change in racial injustice, which they believed was rooted in structures of power and domination.
They began to argue that the United States is a racist country with unredeemable roots. They also argued that racism is present in all aspects of society and many forms. They also argued that laws and policies could be discriminatory if they disparate impact minority groups.
Significance
Race and racism are not new topics in America, but discussion of this concept is more prominent now than ever. It has been used as a political rallying cry by the former President, and laws banning what critics describe as “divisive concepts” have passed in state legislatures around the country.
Law students and legal scholars studying critical race theory seek to reframe racial discrimination discussion. They focus on the racial hierarchy permeating American culture and society and how it legitimizes inequality and oppression.
Critics argue that this concept is anti-American and accuse students of viewing the nation as biased against white people. But scholars who study CRT argue that we cannot understand how our laws and policies have changed throughout history without a clear understanding of how the driving forces of racism, sexism, and classism affect them.
Development
While the term was officially christened in 1989, CRT developed out of an area of academia known as Critical Legal Studies (CLS) that arose during and after the civil rights era. Bell, along with other scholars of CLS, criticized the way the law was often used as an instrument to oppress and exploit certain groups.
He also found that many legal reforms to eliminate racism had limited impact. This led him to conclude that the root cause of racism must be addressed, not just the symptoms.
The ideas of Bell and other CLS scholars fueled debate over how to achieve this goal. Some of them argued that racial prejudices were so ingrained in the American psyche that only through radical change could racism be eliminated.
Other scholars have argued that a more subtle approach is necessary to eliminate the roots of racism in our society. This requires examining how law, policies, and institutions shape social conceptions of race and ethnicity and how those factors contribute to racism and inequality in America.
Influence
The academic concept of critical race theory (CRT) emerged in the 1970s and 1980s. It challenged the dominant paradigms in society’s dialogue on race and racism at that time.
These scholars focused on how law and legal institutions platformed, facilitated, produced, and even insulated racial inequality in American life, from health to housing and education to policing. They also sought to deconstruct the myth of color-blind justice.
CRT is not the same as culturally relevant teaching, which began in the 1990s to affirm students’ ethnic and racial identities in schools. Educators also support diversity and inclusion initiatives, such as anti-bias training, and many teachers use teaching strategies such as story-telling to help students understand social concepts of race and gender.
However, many laws that have swept through various states, with Idaho and North Dakota being the exceptions, ban discussions of these topics by requiring instructors to use a more objective voice or limit the lectures to the definition of “divisive concepts.” The laws do not mention CRT specifically.
Reaction
In the current political climate, it’s not surprising that CRT is generating buzz. Whether at school board meetings or in a political campaign, talk of racial justice is making waves across the nation. Some people are pushing back on the ideas behind the theory, however. Some are calling for teachers to stop teaching about it, and laws that ban the discussion of “divisive concepts” are sweeping through legislatures.
The roots of CRT can be traced to 1976 when legal scholars of color began to question the effectiveness of laws passed during the civil rights era that were intended to eradicate racism. These scholars, known as critical legal studies scholars, determined that laws alone are insufficient to dismantle racist institutions because they don’t address the root causes of discrimination. Two schools of thought developed amongst CLS scholars: idealists and realists. Idealists believe that racism is a social construct and can be dismantled by changing our society’s images, attitudes, and social teachings. Realists, however, see racism as a natural process part of our civilization’s fabric.
