Put the labels on the right jars
The usual stupid hodgepodge of Kinds of Anti-Racism I Don’t Like labeled “Critical Race Theory” as if the two were the same thing.
In schools across the country, woke teachers and left-wing parent activists are promoting critical race theory, a disturbing philosophical framework founded in radical, racially charged concepts about culture, society, and government.
No, you mean they’re promoting various innovations in teaching about race and history and racism. That’s not what Critical Race Theory means.
According to critical race theorists, virtually all of society’s problems should be viewed within the context of alleged systemic racism, which all people have a solemn duty to root out at any cost — including by promoting other forms of racism.
Ibram X. Kendi, a leading advocate of critical race theory, summarized this troubling idea in his popular book How to Be an Antiracist.
But Kendi is not a leading advocate of critical race theory. He’s an activist and academic, but that doesn’t make him a leading advocate of critical race theory. Those three words are not a catchall for every kind of antiracism there is.
Critical race theory has become an immensely popular idea among many in academia, and some of its core tenets have made their way into countless classrooms, in virtually every state in the country.
For example, a New York City public school principal asked parents earlier in 2021 to identify and evaluate their particular kind of “whiteness.” Among the eight options provided were “white supremacist,” “white privilege,” and “white traitor.”
Again – not critical race theory. Whiteness studies, yes, but crt no.
Justin Haskins (author of the piece) admits it at one point:
The argument that critical race theory is often linked to illegal, racist actions was bolstered in a recent ruling by Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen.
In a decision issued on May 27, Knudsen concluded, “In many instances, the use of ‘Critical Race Theory’ and ‘antiracism’ programming discriminates on the basis of race, color, or national origin in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Article II, Section 4 of the Montana Constitution, and the Montana Human Rights Act.”
Emphasis mine. This is what I’m saying. Haskins is talking about antiracism programming in general, and that’s not the same thing as critical race theory. It’s illiterate and pointless to keep insisting it is.
At the end of the day CRT *will* equal whiteness studies because the Republicans and the DiAngelos of the world want it to. We’re in the age of redefining everything to suit the purposes of those with the loudest voices.
*sigh*
Wikipedia page for “whiteness studies”: “An offshoot of critical race theory, theorists of critical whiteness studies seek to …”
“Introduction to Critical Whiteness Studies” (Jennifer Beech, 2020, Brill), opening sentence: “Critical Whiteness Studies is an interdisciplinary project … that contributes to critical race theory.”
4th sentence: “In their introduction to the Rhetoric Review Symposium on “Whiteness Studies” Kennedy, Middleton, and Ratcliffe (2005) note the cultural situatedness of the field: “Critical race studies takes its name from its function, which is to critique race and whiteness as they play out, …”
One could give many more such quotes. “Whiteness studies” or CWS is just a part of CRT, which is an application of more-general “Critical Theory”. And all of these are *explicitly* activist, in seeking to uncover and overthrow oppressor/oppressed relationships. And the stuff being imposed on kids in K-12 schools (and promoted to teachers in teacher-training colleges) really is an *implementation* of what is called “CRT” when taught in universities.
No, he really does mean CRT. Well, although he may not know it, specifically the derivative of CRT known as critical pedagogy. Per wiki, CP “insists that issues of social justice and democracy are not distinct from acts of teaching and learning. The goal of critical pedagogy is emancipation from oppression through an awakening of the critical consciousness, based on the Portuguese term conscientização.” Remember the idea of white fragility, or as it is referred to by Allison Bailey, privilege-preserving epistemic pushback? That comes from critical pedagogy, as a way to poison the well against any student resistance to CP’s ideas. Of course, since the critical theory–derived fields are incestuous, the concept got ported back up the chain to critical race studies/theory, critical whiteness studies, etc.
Seriously. It really is critical race theory. This whole “that’s not CRT” line is bizarre, because it’s often said of things that are explicitly part of or derived from critical race theory and repeatedly affirmed to be so by the very theorists who develop(ed) them. Not only that, but the move is just a straight up non sequitur. Rather than defend any particular claim, adopt a persuasive definition and impugn the opposition’s motives.
Because if you can associate opposition with “the right”, then they’ll reject the opposition’s arguments out of hand. Where have I seen this strategy before?
#2:
And if opponents had starting calling it something else, such as “Critical Whiteness Studies”, we’d now be hearing much the same “but this is not CWS” reply, since the concern is not accuracy in nomenclature, but rather to disallow criticism.
The hell it is. My concern is not to disallow criticism, it’s clarity about what we’re talking about.