Conservatives, please define Critical Race Theory.

[Ferguson97]

Conservatives, how do you define CRT and what portions of it do you believe are currently being taught in K-12 schools?

[ShrekFanboy]

The idea that white people and America are inherently racist.

[RI]

I'll give it a shot:

CRT posits that racism is not primarily a property of individual prejudices, but is an emergent property of social and legal systems (defined as broadly as possible) which leads to disparate outcomes elevating white people above others. This redefinition of racism is really the key to the entire theory.

CRT redefines the experience of racism from one of hate or intolerance to one which is a "normal" and "every day" occurrence which is often not noticeable at first glance but is borne out in statistics. Institutions which are race-blind or which promote equality of opportunity are nevertheless considered racist if they produce unequal outcomes (although equality of outcome is rarely defined with any rigor). Anyone who benefits from these systems, white or otherwise, is considered complicit in the system's racism, and the only way to not be complicit with racism is to actively fight against these systems. Therefore, anyone who is not explicitly anti-racist is, functionally, racist.

This necessitates the elevation of "race consciousness" to the forefront of civic and personal life; that is, race must be front and center in the mind of all citizens (starting from a young age) or else we all fall into complicity with racism. Hence the necessity of universal race and diversity trainings in academic, corporate, and government settings (my work, for example, requires them yearly) and the instantiation of central CRT tenants in school praxis-- to always memento album, the privilege therein, and the responsibility for never-ending racial atonement.

CRT fundamentally regards rationalism and evidence-based analysis as systems which are racist against non-whites, instead preferring to emphasize anecdotal "lived experiences" and metanarrative. As such, it is a non-falsifiable claim to the ordering of the world and one of several reasons it is sometimes compared to a religion.

An unspoken assumption with CRT is that, despite the redefinition of racism, CRT's version of "racism" bares the same negative moral value as the traditional definition of racism when this really isn't clear at all. Further, CRT assumes that all differences in outcome must be attributable to bias within the system and can not be natural byproducts of differing attributes; they further assume without evidence that any extant differences in preferences are themselves byproducts of the racist system itself.

Essentially, CRT assumes a radical egalitarianism naturally exists in the absence of systems wherein everyone not only has identical preferences, skills, potential, initiative, motivations, abilities, histories, etc. (or at least that these characteristics are perfectly randomly distributed across not only race, but also in its intersectionalist forms sex, orientation, etc.) and that all deviations have a socially-generated origin. CRT ignores every society in which racial disparities do not favor white people, any system within American society which actively acts against white people in aggregate, intra-group disparities of outcome, and how groups such as Asians or many African immigrants to the US see disparities in their favor, attributing these to participation in white privilege. CRT further ignores ample evidence that between-group disparities tend to be larger in more egalitarian societies.

CRT in and of itself is not necessarily seen in classrooms, but tenets such as the CRT definition of racism meaning unequal outcomes, the need to be race conscious, and the need to actively stand against systems defined by CRT as racist or else be complicit are taught in K-12 education with increasing regularity. And honestly, I'm not even sure the majority of teachers doing this are aware that this is what they're doing; it's simply assumed as the state of the world.

[Del Tachi]

I'm not as smart as RI but here are my two cents:

Critical Race Theory (CRT) argues that racism is inherent to all systems of American society and that any sort of liberal notion for how to correct racial inequality (i.e., non-discrimination, colorblindness, meritocracy) is actually only a guise to perpetuate White supremacy.  It turns racism from an individual moral failing into something that can only be fixed by recreating every institution in a way that is explicitly race-conscious.
 
Despite the gaslighting from many on this board (OP included), this idea is now actually the dominant way most people in the media and left-of-center politics think about race.

[Green Line]

I'm not as smart as RI but here are my two cents:

Critical Race Theory (CRT) argues that racism is inherent to all systems of American society and that any sort of liberal notion for how to correct racial inequality (i.e., non-discrimination, colorblindness, meritocracy) is actually only a guise to perpetuate White supremacy.  It turns racism from an individual moral failing into something that can only be fixed by recreating every institution in a way that is explicitly race-conscious.
 
Despite the gaslighting from many on this board (OP included), this idea is now actually the dominant way most people in the media and left-of-center politics think about race.

Thats the gist of it for me and many others, really.  The insidious notion that we will defeat racism by making everyone and every single interaction in life hyper race conscious.  Its so backwards that it feels like something out of a George Orwell novel.

[MarkD]

Answering your second question first, I don't have any idea at all how much CRT is influencing the curricula of K-12 education.

But to answer the main question, CRT is an educational movement with interdisciplinary connections to Marxism and Critical Legal Studies. The "lessons" of CRT consist of examining historical facts of racial injustices, placing emphasis on numerous instances of legally tolerated discrimination against blacks. The lessons often overlook the fact that those historical events that were legally tolerated at the time are not tolerated by law any longer, because laws banning racial discrimination have been adopted. Sometimes, the fact that anti-discrimination laws were adopted is treated as though those laws are nowhere near effective enough at combatting discrimination. The lessons seek to teach that society was and still is systemically racist. The lessons never include any suggestions as to what can be done by society to rectify still-occurring instances of racial discrimination. Thus the lessons have the potentiality of instilling in people feelings of pessimism, defeatism, and nihilism -- nothing can be done to end discrimination because the forces of racism are so powerful that they are more powerful than government itself.

Critical Race Theory is a losing issue for everyone IF the proponents of it offer nothing more than destructive criticism, and if it offers no suggestions about what this country can do to improve racial justice. If the ONLY thing that teachers of CRT offer is the negative aspects of the history of racial justice -- that tons of racial discrimination has occurred but, by sin of omission, the teachers of CRT never discuss any important things have already been done to try to combat racial discrimination, and which have often been successful -- then by definition, the "lessons" being taught by CRT are one-sided and incomplete. Only teaching the negative can lead the students of CRT to think so pessimistically and nihilistically about racial justice that they end up thinking that this country is so thoroughly, completely, and irredeemably racist that nothing can ever be done to diminish racism at all; that racism is too powerful and nothing can ever be done to reduce it at all.

And, as Teddy Roosevelt once famously said, "Complaining about a problem without posing a solution is called whining."

Is America a country in which .... ?
  --- the highest law of the land, the Constitution, contains a clause which says "No State shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws"
 --- the highest court of the country has interpreted that Clause to be a rule that "the law in the States shall be the same for the black as for the white; that all persons, whether colored or white, shall stand equal before the laws of the States, and, in regard to the colored race, for whose protection the amendment was primarily designed, that no discrimination shall be made against them bar law because of their color"
 --- the highest court of the country has often struck down racially discriminatory laws, including laws that provide for de jure segregation of the races in various public facilities
 --- the national legislature has passed, and the President has signed, numerous Civil Rights Acts, including the most important one, the Civil Right Act of 1964, to combat racial discrimination in the private market place, and passed the Fair Housing Act of 1968 to combat racial discrimination in real estate

These laws have not made racism and discrimination go away completely. How many laws do you know of that are successfully enforced each and every time against every single person who violates them? But they have been enforced against racist people who make unacceptable race-based decisions how to treat other people. These laws exist because we knew we needed to address and remedy racial injustices. We still need these laws, because racism is never going to simply go away. These laws still teach us important moral lessons about how we should treat other people. We should never forget about these laws; we should always remember why they were adopted; we should remember that these are our tools for combating racial discrimination. As I think about the existence of these laws, in our country, of the history behind them, I feel like saying ......

No, we are not a racist country. We are a country that has racism within it, and we have the means to fight discrimination, we have been doing so, and we must continue doing so.

[ملكة كرينجيتوك]

CRT fundamentally regards rationalism and evidence-based analysis as systems which are racist against non-whites, instead preferring to emphasize anecdotal "lived experiences" and metanarrative. As such, it is a non-falsifiable claim to the ordering of the world and one of several reasons it is sometimes compared to a religion.

An unspoken assumption with CRT is that, despite the redefinition of racism, CRT's version of "racism" bares the same negative moral value as the traditional definition of racism when this really isn't clear at all. Further, CRT assumes that all differences in outcome must be attributable to bias within the system and can not be natural byproducts of differing attributes; they further assume without evidence that any extant differences in preferences are themselves byproducts of the racist system itself.

Essentially, CRT assumes a radical egalitarianism naturally exists in the absence of systems wherein everyone not only has identical preferences, skills, potential, initiative, motivations, abilities, histories, etc. (or at least that these characteristics are perfectly randomly distributed across not only race, but also in its intersectionalist forms sex, orientation, etc.) and that all deviations have a socially-generated origin. CRT ignores every society in which racial disparities do not favor white people, any system within American society which actively acts against white people in aggregate, intra-group disparities of outcome, and how groups such as Asians or many African immigrants to the US see disparities in their favor, attributing these to participation in white privilege. CRT further ignores ample evidence that between-group disparities tend to be larger in more egalitarian societies.

I'm pretty left-wing on race relations in the US (as my posting history might suggest), but I also agree with pretty much all of the quoted critiques of CRT.

My strongest objections with what RI just described are 1) people who try to apply US standards of "anti-blackness" or "aspirational whiteness" to other societies that don't have the same history of racialized slavery or cultural dynamics as the US, and 2) how non-white groups that aren't composed of the descendants of former slaves or the original settlers of this country are somehow automatically complicit in having "white privilege".

[CEO Mindset]

If we're going to mod people for posting blood libel theories about jews, can we do the same about people posting blood libel about whites? That's basically what CRT and other "anti-racism" arguments amount to: blood libel.

[Ferguson97]

I'll give it a shot:

CRT posits that racism is not primarily a property of individual prejudices, but is an emergent property of social and legal systems (defined as broadly as possible) which leads to disparate outcomes elevating white people above others. This redefinition of racism is really the key to the entire theory.

CRT redefines the experience of racism from one of hate or intolerance to one which is a "normal" and "every day" occurrence which is often not noticeable at first glance but is borne out in statistics. Institutions which are race-blind or which promote equality of opportunity are nevertheless considered racist if they produce unequal outcomes (although equality of outcome is rarely defined with any rigor). Anyone who benefits from these systems, white or otherwise, is considered complicit in the system's racism, and the only way to not be complicit with racism is to actively fight against these systems. Therefore, anyone who is not explicitly anti-racist is, functionally, racist.

I genuinely do not understand how you could write this out and think "I disagree with this".

[Big Abraham]

I'll give it a shot:

CRT posits that racism is not primarily a property of individual prejudices, but is an emergent property of social and legal systems (defined as broadly as possible) which leads to disparate outcomes elevating white people above others. This redefinition of racism is really the key to the entire theory.

CRT redefines the experience of racism from one of hate or intolerance to one which is a "normal" and "every day" occurrence which is often not noticeable at first glance but is borne out in statistics. Institutions which are race-blind or which promote equality of opportunity are nevertheless considered racist if they produce unequal outcomes (although equality of outcome is rarely defined with any rigor). Anyone who benefits from these systems, white or otherwise, is considered complicit in the system's racism, and the only way to not be complicit with racism is to actively fight against these systems. Therefore, anyone who is not explicitly anti-racist is, functionally, racist.

I genuinely do not understand how you could write this out and think "I disagree with this".

Well for one thing, it's an unfalsifiable hypothesis.

The logic inherent in CRT is no different than the logic inherent in the Augustinian doctrine of original sin. Something you are surely against being taught as fact in public schools.

[progressive85]

The idea that white people and America are inherently racist.

White people are not racist simply by virtue of being white, so I would classify CRT as a problem if that's the case.  I too have no idea what it is, but I don't think 80% of the American people know what it is, and a majority has never even heard of this most likely.

[Southern Reactionary Dem]

I'm not as smart as RI but here are my two cents:

Critical Race Theory (CRT) argues that racism is inherent to all systems of American society and that any sort of liberal notion for how to correct racial inequality (i.e., non-discrimination, colorblindness, meritocracy) is actually only a guise to perpetuate White supremacy.  It turns racism from an individual moral failing into something that can only be fixed by recreating every institution in a way that is explicitly race-conscious.
 
Despite the gaslighting from many on this board (OP included), this idea is now actually the dominant way most people in the media and left-of-center politics think about race.

Unfortunately, this is correct and while it doesn't yet have a stranglehold on public schools, it is currently a very popular topic in universities. The definition is intentionally vague and basically means whatever is most convenient for its advocates when gaslighting its opponents in a debate and gives an air of plausible deniability to extremist views. In my view, Democratic politicians should point blank condemn it and make it a non-issue in campaigns..... but a disturbing number (even those who say it isn't an issue) feel the need to reflexively defend it and that, I think, tells voters all they need to know. It's a losing strategy.

[Southern Reactionary Dem]

I'll give it a shot:

CRT posits that racism is not primarily a property of individual prejudices, but is an emergent property of social and legal systems (defined as broadly as possible) which leads to disparate outcomes elevating white people above others. This redefinition of racism is really the key to the entire theory.

CRT redefines the experience of racism from one of hate or intolerance to one which is a "normal" and "every day" occurrence which is often not noticeable at first glance but is borne out in statistics. Institutions which are race-blind or which promote equality of opportunity are nevertheless considered racist if they produce unequal outcomes (although equality of outcome is rarely defined with any rigor). Anyone who benefits from these systems, white or otherwise, is considered complicit in the system's racism, and the only way to not be complicit with racism is to actively fight against these systems. Therefore, anyone who is not explicitly anti-racist is, functionally, racist.

I genuinely do not understand how you could write this out and think "I disagree with this".

I disagree with this. It's just a divisive way for extremists to brand moderates and well-meaning normies who aren't even very political as racists. Extremely reductive "if you're not with me, you're against me" politics is the quickest way to alienate the public and lose an election... especially when you gaslight people and tell them CRT isn't a real issue in one breath while advocating for it in another. Not even most minorities support this nonsense. This is nothing but a fever dream for the self-hating gentrified white liberal crowd.

[Ferguson97]

I'll give it a shot:

CRT posits that racism is not primarily a property of individual prejudices, but is an emergent property of social and legal systems (defined as broadly as possible) which leads to disparate outcomes elevating white people above others. This redefinition of racism is really the key to the entire theory.

CRT redefines the experience of racism from one of hate or intolerance to one which is a "normal" and "every day" occurrence which is often not noticeable at first glance but is borne out in statistics. Institutions which are race-blind or which promote equality of opportunity are nevertheless considered racist if they produce unequal outcomes (although equality of outcome is rarely defined with any rigor). Anyone who benefits from these systems, white or otherwise, is considered complicit in the system's racism, and the only way to not be complicit with racism is to actively fight against these systems. Therefore, anyone who is not explicitly anti-racist is, functionally, racist.

I genuinely do not understand how you could write this out and think "I disagree with this".

I disagree with this. It's just a divisive way for extremists to brand moderates and well-meaning normies who aren't even very political as racists. Extremely reductive "if you're not with me, you're against me" politics is the quickest way to alienate the public and lose an election... especially when you gaslight people and tell them CRT isn't a real issue in one breath while advocating for it in another. Not even most minorities support this nonsense. This is nothing but a fever dream for the self-hating gentrified white liberal crowd.

The idea that racism is systemic and pervasive in our systems should not be controversial.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

I feel like I'm the only one old enough who paid any attention in 2010. Seriously, does no one remember this?

AUSTIN, Tex. — After three days of turbulent meetings, the Texas Board of Education on Friday approved a social studies curriculum that will put a conservative stamp on history and economics textbooks, stressing the superiority of American capitalism, questioning the Founding Fathers’ commitment to a purely secular government and presenting Republican political philosophies in a more positive light.

The vote was 10 to 5 along party lines, with all the Republicans on the board voting for it.

The board, whose members are elected, has influence beyond Texas because the state is one of the largest buyers of textbooks. In the digital age, however, that influence has diminished as technological advances have made it possible for publishers to tailor books to individual states.

In recent years, board members have been locked in an ideological battle between a bloc of conservatives who question Darwin’s theory of evolution and believe the Founding Fathers were guided by Christian principles, and a handful of Democrats and moderate Republicans who have fought to preserve the teaching of Darwinism and the separation of church and state.

Since January, Republicans on the board have passed more than 100 amendments to the 120-page curriculum standards affecting history, sociology and economics courses from elementary to high school. The standards were proposed by a panel of teachers.

Education indoctrination for me but not for thee. And irrespective of hypocrite organizations playing woke, this was the literal rewriting of high school textbooks. Literally no one is "learning" critical race theory except legal scholars.

[TPIG]

Honestly didn't read any of the other responses, so apologies if this sounds like a repeat -

CRT is a lens of historical analysis which attempts to highlight the ways in which racial power dynamics have played a large role in US/European history for the past several hundred years.

I honestly don't have much of a problem with this method of analysis; I more take issue with the small number of people who use the insights of said analysis to demonize entire groups of people.

[CEO Mindset]

Anti-racism is anti-white, end of discussion.

"Racist" is to "white" as "spic" is for hispanic and certain words for jews and blacks.

[Middle-aged Europe]

Not a conservative myself, but this thread seems to contain a few good and a couple of really bad takes from right-wingers. But I guess that was to be expected.

My problem with the entire CRT debate is that CRT covers (or rather that's how the term is now used) a pretty broad and heterogeneous spectrum of tools and ideas to examine systemic racism, some of which are sound while others have less merit. In the public and political debate this is unfortunately reduced to a simple binary for/against dichotomy that doesn't really do the complexities of this field justice. Therefore nobody really adresses the issue of what we should keep and what must go. Of course there are political actors whose interest lies in keeping the debate that oversimplified.

[Saint Milei]

Not really sure what the definition is anymore since the left doesn't actually want to define it and when it does, we conclude it's basically teaching racism in a way that shouldn't be in the classroom.

[Donerail]

Something has changed in schools over the last decade, starting in colleges and trickling down into K-12 education. Those changes are largely justified in the name of "equity" and "inclusion." I think we can all acknowledge that this shift has occurred, whatever name you decide to give it ("CRT," "wokeness," "successor ideology," etc.).

Conservatives have decided to call that thing "CRT," because saying you're "anti-diversity" or even "anti-DEI" is obviously not a politically viable strategy, and there's no better word for the suite of changes that have occurred. Playing the pedantic language game of "that's not actually CRT" doesn't really help you, at this point — we all know what's being talked about and we all know that it exists. Either produce a substantive defense of these changes or don't, but the language game stuff is pretty tired at this point.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Conservatives have decided to call that thing "CRT," because saying you're "anti-diversity" or even "anti-DEI" is obviously not a politically viable strategy, and there's no better word for the suite of changes that have occurred. Playing the pedantic language game of "that's not actually CRT" doesn't really help you, at this point — we all know what's being talked about and we all know that it exists. Either produce a substantive defense of these changes or don't, but the language game stuff is pretty tired at this point.

Yeah. As I've said, there's a reason "it would be morally wrong to pivot away from this if it existed; it doesn't though" is turning out not to be a winning message.

[Statilius the Epicurean]

Something has changed in schools over the last decade, starting in colleges and trickling down into K-12 education. Those changes are largely justified in the name of "equity" and "inclusion." I think we can all acknowledge that this shift has occurred, whatever name you decide to give it ("CRT," "wokeness," "successor ideology," etc.).

Conservatives have decided to call that thing "CRT," because saying you're "anti-diversity" or even "anti-DEI" is obviously not a politically viable strategy, and there's no better word for the suite of changes that have occurred. Playing the pedantic language game of "that's not actually CRT" doesn't really help you, at this point — we all know what's being talked about and we all know that it exists. Either produce a substantive defense of these changes or don't, but the language game stuff is pretty tired at this point.

Liberals are just like my gaslighting ex boyfriend.

[lfromnj]

https://mobile.twitter.com/ericbradner/status/1456065398319853574

A bit too vague and the mlk part is a bit eh for me but it fit in well.i can't find the video but it was pretty decent. Other than the last line I can't see anything that Obama would have been averse to saying in 2008. This is the good part of CRT(Doneraildefinition )for the GOP. They can energize their base with a solid cultural issue while not alienating moderates unlike say immigration.

[TJ in Oregon]

I define Critical Theory in general as a method of interpreting people, events, history, writings, etc through a hermeneutic of a struggle to maintain power and dominate others. Critical Race Theory is the same, except applied specifically to power using racial groups.

Interestingly, conservatives also do this when assailing liberal institutions. There is something to be noted that the positions "all institutions throughout the history of Western civilization were driven by white men trying to keep power and control" and "believe everything the CDC tells you about the coronavirus" do not play nicely together. Much of the anti-elite reaction is a popularization of a different sort of Critical Theory also.

While the struggle for power and domination is obviously present throughout all of history, focusing on it primarily will lead to a biased and overly negative view of whatever it is applied to. The end result is a caustic melting of whatever institution lies in its path.

[HisGrace]

The problem is proponents of CRT have never bothered to define it all that well and the onus is on them, not conservatives to do it. You can not like something without being 100% sure what it is, to like something you have to really know about it. The original papers pushing CRT in schools pretty much just pushed for a bunch of "alternative" racial theories to be taught in schools, most of which would fall under the umbrella of "black nationalism". We should not be teaching black nationalism as an objective fact in schools, which is generally how CRT manifests itself.