I have a question for conservatives.
Actually, it’s not just for conservatives.
It’s for anyone who thinks schools should prohibit analysis and perspectives derived from Critical Race Theory (CRT) from being taught in the classroom.
The question is simple.
Do y’all know what a theory is?
Do you understand what it means to have a theory and why one might devise such a thing? I don’t just mean about race. I mean about anything.
Like, a theory about why, when you hold a ball waist-high and let it go, it falls to the ground?
Or how humans developed our large and complex brains and various traits over time?
Our ability to engage theories is a crucial element of critical thinking
Both of these — in the first instance, gravity, and the second, evolution — were devised, as with any theory, to explain an observable phenomenon.
That’s what people do. We see things, we wonder about them, and then we develop explanations for what we observe.
It’s part of what makes us human because it suggests the ability for complex and abstract thought — something other species cannot manage, or at least not at the same level.
We have theories to explain all kinds of things, from the way cancer cells replicate to why nation states act the way they do in geopolitical conflicts to why we tend to respond with a startle when we see someone else trip over an object on the sidewalk.
Theories are how people try and make sense of the world — they are the cornerstone of critical thought
No matter the subject, our ability to engage in theoretical reflection is a crucial element of critical thinking. Without it, knowledge itself is sidelined.
Think about economics, for instance.
Some believe in supply-side theories, which advocate tax cuts on businesses and the affluent to bolster economic output by putting more money in the hands of those in a position to provide jobs.
Others believe in demand-side theories, which advocate putting more money in the hands of lower and moderate-income persons (via stronger unions, more robust safety nets, or universal basic income) because their purchases will spur economic activity from below.
…shutting down theories because you don’t like them is a kind of anti-intellectual censorship
Now, imagine we were trying to figure out the best tax, fiscal, or monetary policies but were told that in doing so, we weren’t allowed even to consider one of the above theories at all.
This would be a direct assault on our ability to think critically. It would hamstring our ability to consider all the evidence and strip us of information we need to fashion the best policies for the society we share.
Not very smart, right?
Not to mention — shutting down theories because you don’t like them is a kind of anti-intellectual censorship.
It’s like the church imprisoning Galileo for endorsing Copernican theory or the Athenians trying Socrates for impiety and corrupting the young, rather than, in either case, actually engaging with the thinking of these men.
That’s what the right is doing now with Critical Race Theory.
Why was CRT developed? To explain observable social phenomena
Critical Race Theory was developed, as with any theory, to explain observable phenomena. In this case, to explain why vast disparities remained between whites and Blacks, in all areas of social and economic well-being, despite the victories of the civil rights movement.
That was an important question to consider.
Laws had been passed prohibiting discrimination, yet significant inequities persisted in employment, education, housing, and other categories.
Scholars wanted to know why — especially legal scholars, whose training had taught them to believe that the law was a vehicle for delivering fairness and justice to all.
The Crits weren’t off on some weird tangent, seeing things that weren’t there. They were seeing the same stuff conservatives and mainstream liberals were seeing but were unsatisfied with their explanations for what was being observed
And by the way, CRT wasn’t the only theory devised to explain ongoing inequity amid formal equality.
Mainstream liberals had their own explanation.
To this group, the process of equality was a slow one, needing more resources and time. Eventually, they said, we would attain that more perfect union and fulfill the promises of democracy for all.
Conservatives, too, have a theory.
To this bunch, ongoing inequities reflect bad choices made by Black people (having too many kids out of wedlock, relying on welfare programs, or insufficiently valuing education). Black culture and communities, they say, are primarily to blame for the position of Black folks and families relative to whites.
But the point is, regardless of where you come down on this, everyone was trying to explain the same thing.
The Crits weren’t off on some weird tangent, seeing things that weren’t there. They were seeing the same stuff conservatives and mainstream liberals were seeing but were unsatisfied with their explanations for what was being observed.
And so they devised a theory which holds, at its core, that the reason the civil rights revolution failed to eliminate racial disparities between whites and Blacks is that white domination was more deeply embedded in the customs, practices, and narratives of the society than many assumed.
To the crits, racism was deliberately embedded in American law and culture for the purpose of aggregating power and resources in the hands of those deemed white and denying the same to all who were not.
The mere passage of laws could neither arrest the inertia of that history nor fully excavate the thinking that had maintained inequality for so long.
To simplify the differences between the conservative, liberal, and critical schools of thought, you can think of it like this:
- Conservative race theory says: America has fulfilled its promises, clearing the barriers and obstacles in the way of Black people. Thus, if they remain behind, the fault lies with their actions, choices, and behaviors.
- Liberal race theory says: America hasn’t quite lived up to its promises. We’ve made progress but are still striving to make real the blessings of liberty for all.
- Critical race theory says: What promises? America was never established for the benefit of Black and brown people — quite the opposite. As such, its failure to provide racial equity is no surprise. It means the system is functioning as intended.
There are other theories, too — first and foremost, Marxist theory, which lays the blame for racial inequity at the feet of capitalism and how the class system disproportionately affects Black and brown folks because they are disproportionately working class and poor.
But the point is, regardless of which of these schools of thought one belongs to, everyone in each group is trying to figure out the same shit.
Conservatives don’t seek to rebut CRT — they seek to ban it from consideration
Much like the Athenians’ response to Socrates or the reaction of certain parts of Christendom to Galileo, modern-day conservatives would rather shut down the thinking they oppose than engage with it openly.
In their current assault on anti-racist education and scholarship, the right rarely, if ever, tries to refute the arguments that bother them.
For instance, when expressing outrage at the idea that racism is not merely an interpersonal phenomenon but a systemic force deliberately embedded in America from the start, they don’t typically explain why this claim is wrong.
They don’t present an alternative interpretation of history that might undermine the CRT version of it.
Instead, they seem to believe their indignation is a sufficient response.
But it isn’t.
Granted, there may well be an alternative view worth considering. I don’t think there is, but I’d be glad to hear it were conservatives willing to provide it. But they don’t even try.
Oh sure, they talk about how much progress we’ve made, or how you can’t judge the founders by today’s moral standards, or how slavery existed in other cultures too — you know the drill.
But those aren’t rebuttals to the CRT claim itself.
Even if you find those arguments persuasive, they don’t speak to whether or not the nation was established based on white supremacy.
Even better is when they say, “That was a long time ago, and we shouldn’t dwell in the past.”
Putting aside how long ago it really was and the whole issue of inertia, history, by definition, was in the past.
So by the logic of conservatives, we shouldn’t teach it at all.
But that’s not what they mean, of course. They have no problem teaching history, so long as we stick to the pretty and patriotic parts.
The right is trying to enforce conservative beliefs by censorship
This is an assault on critical thinking itself more so than on Critical Race Theory.
And if you prohibit consideration of the CRT position that systemic racism is a principal reason for ongoing inequities, what are you left with?
Pretty much only the preferred conservative version — that the problem is Black people themselves. They make bad choices. They haven’t taken advantage of the opportunities afforded them.
In short, the right wants students only to hear conservative or perhaps moderately liberal explanations for inequality.
They are attempting to ban critical reflection itself.
That is what they despise.
They don’t want students to think. They want their children and all children to think as they do, obey and follow their teaching, and never consider other perspectives.
Perhaps some would say we on the left are guilty of the same thing, but I have no problem considering and evaluating the above-mentioned conservative theories for ongoing inequity.
I have done so in essay after essay after essay after essay after essay after essay and in multiple books.
Nor do I know many on the left who aren’t willing to engage those theories or have students exposed to them.
Oh sure, we don’t think notions of biological racial superiority and inferiority should be taught. These have been thoroughly debunked by experts in the respective fields of biology, genetics, and psychology and deserve no more consideration than claims that the Earth is flat or 6000 years old.
But as for claims about welfare, culural values and such? We think those are racist too, frankly, but unlike notions of “racial science” deserve a hearing and proper debunking given their ongoing acceptance by many, including many scholars.
This isn’t a “both sides do it” situation.
This is about right-wing parents engaging in intellectual child abuse for the sake of power over their children — and yours.
And that should make all thinking people mad.
Not just the ones who agree with Critical Race Theory.
—
This post was previously published on AfroSapiophile.
***
You may also like these posts on The Good Men Project:
 Escape the Act Like a Man Box |
 |
 |
 |
Join The Good Men Project as a Premium Member today.
All Premium Members get to view The Good Men Project with NO ADS.
A $50 annual membership gives you an all access pass. You can be a part of every call, group, class and community.
A $25 annual membership gives you access to one class, one Social Interest group and our online communities.
A $12 annual membership gives you access to our Friday calls with the publisher, our online community.
Register New Account
Need more info? A complete list of benefits is here.
—
Photo credit: Shutterstock
