In Chapters 1 and 2 of Critical Race Theory, authors and CRT pioneers Richard Delgado and Jean Stefancic give readers an introduction to the theory as a discipline, an intellectual tradition, and a tool for marginalized people to strategize about their own liberation. While CRT officially emerged in the 1970s as lawyers, activists and legal scholars openly voiced their frustrations with the perceived stall and regression in progress towards true equality, many of the thoughts, theories, and principles had existed before its founding. Critical Race Theory is an academic discipline that provides new theories, strategies and texts that can be used to name and study one’s own experience as a marginalized individual in American society.
While I had always been interested in CRT, I was fascinated to read about the specific, differing ways of thinking within the discipline. I appreciated the descriptions of both the “idealist”, who believes “racism and discrimination are matters of thinking, mental categorization, attitude, and discourse” (21) and the “realist”, who holds that, “racism is a means by which society allocates privilege and status” (21). During the semester, as we read course material, I personally will be mindful of whether the author is a realist, an idealist, or maybe a mix of both.
I completely agreed with CRT’s criticism of color-blindness and its effectiveness, or lack thereof, in eradicating racism. While it feels very obvious that any solution that is not race-conscious and intentional about targeting the historical wrongdoings perpetrated against a specific group of people, this notion seems to completely miss others (specifically those who are in the dominant, ruling class). The issue of color-blind politics renders the less overt, obvious instances of racism nonexistent and unimportant, operating under the guise of eradicating the blatant forms of discrimination. This notion coincides with the idea of “interest convergence.” This theory ascertains that many of the initiatives to eradicate discrimination have only been enacted when it benefits both the oppressed and ruling class, or when these interests converge. When these interests do not converge, and when a decision that would benefit minority groups would not benefit white-elites, there is less incentive for them to play a role in eradicating racism. It is these two ways of thinking, colorblind ideology and the lack of incentive/moral responsibility within white people to end racism, coupled with the complete lack of empathy among our population, that is crippling any true progress towards racial equity.
I also resonated with the discontent towards liberalism, especially when taking into consideration the colorblind, non confrontational, and passive mindset that a lot of liberals have adopted. Speaking to the “voice-of-color thesis”, or the idea that minorities have a presumed competence to speak about race and racism by virtue of their experience and identity, I believe that this difference in understanding inhibits white liberals from being able to have a radical imagination for true justice. In turn, this robs the entire country of the revolutionary initiatives and ideologies that would ultimately benefit us all.
Ultimately, having read this piece and the article in class, I still struggle to see the arguments against teaching CRT – at least in the college classroom. A tenet of CRT is not only to analyze these power hierarchies and imbalances, to critique our environment and ruling bodies, to hold individuals and systems accountable, and to use critical thinking skills, but also to transform the world for the better. It is a common sentiment that the university experience is supposed to encourage and prepare students to take on that very task. By banning CRT at the university level, we surrender incompetent, unimaginative, and narrow-minded individuals into the workforce, and continue feeding into the issues that strengthen the grip of racism onto our country.
I completely agree with your take from the reading, I also struggle with the arguments against critical race theory. While critics against critical race theory eloquently and clearly show reasons for doubting critical race theory, it has greatly proven useful to scholars as a way to study “bilingual and multicultural education as well as controversy in the curriculum” (Delgado et al. 01:12:56-00). What follows from any pessimism involving critical race theory is its call to realism and action to heal, mend, and fix the country’s ideologies. Similar to how medicine works, critical race theory can act as a treatment and a preventative. It can prevent future generations who aren’t racist from falling subject to the racist culture embedded in the history and every society of the United States while also acting as a treatment for the generations who have already fallen victim to the American way of thinking and/or created the influence of racism ideology. Critical race theory is essential in accepting, deconstructing, and repairing the mindset of racism and discrimination this country has created. Personally, I feel that because the majority does not face the discrimination and direct challenges people of color does it is hard to grasp the concepts their race and class have shielded them from. This leaves room for the majority to be blind, in denial, or just purposefully ignorant of the racism and challenges people of color face every day. While I do feel that racism is a social construct, a product of ignorance and lack of experience, and can be dismantled and corrected; I feel that it is also generationally taught and deeply embedded in American culture. While I like to say it can be corrected, it is extremely hard and nearly impossible to deconstruct the embedded framework and foundation of this nation especially without idealists and realists working together for the long run.
I too was interested by the sections of the reading detailing the ‘factions’ interior to Critical Race Theory. I am curious if, in later chapters, the distinction between the ‘idealists’ and the ‘realists’ is elaborated on further, particularly because, to me, the two approaches do not necessarily seem contradictory. Even though the former focuses on racism as ideology, where the latter focuses on racism as structure, it seems to me that racism can be both ideological and structural.
A concept from traditional Marxist theory might be useful here, as that is an area of study that likewise makes a distinction between material reality and networks of symbols. For Marxists, society is composed of two parts: the base, that is, material reality, including the mode of production and the relations of production; and the superstructure, that is, all parts of society not directly related to production, such as religion, art, media, culture, and ideology. The relation between the base and superstructure is reciprocal, but, in the last instance, the superstructure is ultimately determined by the base. Ideology has an impact of material reality, but material reality determines ideology.
Though this distinction is not always useful, and it is not one to which I am necessarily committed, thinking in terms of base and superstructure can help us make sense of the relation between ideological and structural racism. Action taken to combat ideological racism is of course important, vital work. However, because structural racism is ingrained in the base, to the material reality in which we live, the conditions in which we live will reproduce ideologies of racism, until those conditions are fundamentally changed. According to this understanding, both combatting ideological and structural racism is vital, but ideological racism cannot be fully undone until structural racism is abolished.
Alexis, I also agree with your sentiment about the arguments made against teaching about the CRT. I think it is important for people to be able to check their privilege if they have it and to better the lives of all people by recognizing and addressing their experiences. Personally, I have experienced multiple microaggressions, such as being confused for the other Asian girl in our small class and being asked interview questions that were significantly harder and more complex than my white peers. I am also disappointed in the school systems, public and private, for not teaching about this. I wanted to take this class to understand CRT because I was never taught this. I thought it was interesting how the book mentions the Anglocentric curriculum and how minority kids experience a different type of teaching from their white peers. Similarly, when you mentioned how, with liberalism, there is this idea of being “colorblind” and having a non-confrontation and passive mindset. This reminds me of my last class with ProfSi, where we discussed the concept of being “colorblind” and how it is not truly possible to be “colorblind” without erasing the history and horror of people who have been and are still suffering due to racism. My question is if it is possible to get change done with a passive mindset and without confrontation. Throughout history, people have had to fight for things like equal rights, representation, etc. Ultimately, it was very interesting to find out how all different fields of study use CRT, even philosophy. Your last sentence also resonated with me- I think throughout the course, we’ll see how being educated on CRT can help us in all fields of study and exploration.
I also believe that CRT can be used as an academic tool. I feel that there is much confusion on how to properly evaluate CRT or what the intended purpose of it actually is. For many discussions I like to think of opposing arguments because they can sometimes strengthen your own. However, when it comes to this particular discussion of teaching CRT, I feel that the opposing side doesn’t really provide any sufficient evidence besides one group of people feeling offended based on facts that happen in history.
I am glad to see that you pointed out the section where they talked about “color blindness”. This was something that has been brought up in my previous courses as well, not just in this reading. It’s something that interests me a lot because it can go far in depth with its content. It’s important to not be color blind in order to understand the gravity of seeing people and understanding the problems they may face that others may not necessarily be introduced with. Although many may say they are “color blind” with the intention of meaning they don’t judge people based on color, what they are actually doing is neglecting to see the problems certain backgrounds of people are faced with. I will say that addressing colors isn’t a simple solution either. For example, within the 14th amendment under the equal protection clause, seeing colors actually works as a double edge sword when it involves the law. This clause protects people from discrimination and pushes for equality. Where it gets tricky is how do you then implement laws to benefit people without specifically stating it. You see, if a law was made that said any person who identifies as black is eligible to a $1,000 reparation for injustices done to their ancestors. Yes, this law recognizes color but it also discriminates against people who aren’t black. If someone wanted the money they could also identify as black in hopes of doing so. This is something that happens more often than one may think. A real life example would be affirmative action. Despite being very beneficial for many black communities, it was easily misconstrued under a different perspective and overturned. This is why many universities use a sort of “checklist” to increase their minority population on campus. They will use questions like, “are you from a single parent family” or “what is the education level of your parents?”
Another section I liked was the revision of history. This is where I believe it can help as an academic tool like you mentioned. I think part of the reason people are scared about CRT is the name. They hear race and immediately don’t want to talk about it because of how the country dealt with it in the past. If there was a “history revamp” in the curriculum that showed the true events in history and the effects it still has in minority communities today then now we are making strides towards progress. This way I feel it will less offend the white population and be more so of “these are the facts” and now we have the opportunity to make things right. This will also help achieve the goal CRT is aiming for.