What (in the world) is CRT?

What is CRT? Let’s talk about it by way of summarizing and responding to Critical Race Theory: An Introduction.

As an important preface, as a summary introduction to CRT, Critical Race Theory: An Introduction highlights where certain theorists disagree and hold differing viewpoints. Not all critical race theorists agree. Therefore, this review seeks to highlight the basic tenants of CRT. Furthermore, this response will highlight tenants increasingly embraced on the ground in popular culture.  

Critical Race Theory: An Introduction argues that CRT is about applying interpretations about society as it relates to race and racism to the world of law. Critical Race Theory is the result of applying the “tools of critical theory to the law” (XV). The goal is to “reveal and challenge the practices of subordination facilitated and permitted by legal discourse and legal institutions” (XVI). In other words, CRT is about identifying where and how people are being oppressed by racism in the world of legal discourse and legal institutions. “Critical race theory not only dares to treat race as central to the law and policy of the United States; it dares to look beyond the popular belief that getting rid of racism means simply getting rid of ignorance and encouraging everyone to ‘get along….racism is part of the structure of legal institutions…”’ (XVI).

However, the world of CRT is not merely about or connected to what happens in the world of law. CRT is interested in all of society, especially as it pertains to race and racism. “The critical race theory (CRT) movement is a collection of activists and scholars engaged in studying and transforming the relationship among race, racism, and power” (3). CRT posits that “racism is ordinary” and the “usual way society does business, the common, every day experience of most people of color in this country” (8). CRT says that “…racism is embedded in our thought processes and social structures…” so “deeply” that the “…‘ordinary business’ of society…will keep minorities in subordinate positions” (27).

As the ordinary business of society, racism is largely invisible. Racism is said to be “pervasive, systematic, and deeply ingrained. If we take this perspective, then no white member of society seems quite so innocent.”[1] CRT builds on “feminism’s insights” into the “unseen, largely invisible collection of patterns and habits” (5). In other words, racism today is a collection of invisible patterns and habits.

One might think that surely America seems to have made progress forward in doing away with racism. However, CRT theorizes that progress has not really been made at all but rather racism has just morphed. Even some of the most pivotal moments of progress are actually racism at work in more deceitful ways. This is because the “dominant group” (i.e. white people) has “little incentive to eradicate it” (8-9). “Culture replicates itself forever and ineluctably.”[2]

What are examples of the racism that is the “ordinary business of society”? It appears there is almost no limit to what might qualify as racist behavior. For instance, the book identifies a problem with “someone who has never seen a Mexican, except for cartoon figures wearing sombreros and serapes” and thus does not know how they actually dress (35). Rather than chalking this up to mere limited knowledge of world cultures, CRT wants to read into this some kind of discrimination or racism as there is apparently something wrong with thinking someone wears a sombrero. This is one of almost limitless examples of racism at work in America.

The logic of CRT is probably inconsistent here. For instance, will CRT consider it racist or discriminatory for much of the world to still think Texans ride horses for daily travel? Or would that just reveal an expected, normal lack of cultural knowledge? Asked generally, should we expect other cultures to have extensive knowledge of every culture on the globe?

CRT seems to know few bounds when uncovering racism. CRT focuses on things like “emotions” and “the unconscious” (3). CRT says racism is so complex that even one’s “coldness” or “smiles” or “kindness” towards another could really just be racism (31). It is absolutely correct that someone may be cold to another person because the cold person is a racist. However, the subtly of CRT seems to be the idea that coldness, smiles, or kindness, in and of themselves, can be concluded to be racism. In other words, no other evidence is needed to show that one’s coldness is a result of a racist heart other than an instance of coldness. In this vein, the world of CRT is actively debating the idea of free speech. This is a frightening prospect when one’s mere “coldness” towards another could be considered racist on the surface. What words, phrases, and ideas will CRT soon condemn as racist without any evidence of racism and thus seek to severely limit the right to free speech?

In the end, if there is a rock CRT seems to assume racism is under it and therefore begins the process of overturning it. This is perhaps why CRT is actively seeking to invent new categories and new terms in order to be able to speak about every rock racism could be hiding under.

CRT is not limited to just matters of race but really any and all power realities. CRT concerns itself with almost anything and everything that has to do with what it interprets as oppression. Thus, the CRT movement has no bounds and can influence and speak to anything, as everything in the worldview of CRT is classified in terms of oppressed and oppressive. “Although CRT began as a movement in the law, it has rapidly spread beyond that discipline. Today, many scholars in the field of education…use CRT’s ideas to understand issues of school discipline and hierarchy…high-stakes testing…and alternative and charter schools” (7). CRT concerns itself with things like education, immigration, national security, and climate change, for examples.

The way CRT seeks to substantiate itself is through personal narrative. Ironically, while focusing on whole systems and people groups, CRT relies on individual narratives and subjective experiences to prove itself to be true. The book itself practices this by often beginning chapters with stories, stating that two people can “put radically different interpretations” on “evidence”.[3] “Critical race theorists have built on everyday experiences with perspective, viewpoint, and the power of stories and persuasion to come to a deeper understanding of how Americans see race.”[4]

Throughout the book this storytelling is practiced. Oddly, sometimes imaginary scenarios are created to make real-life points. In describing the reality of “white privilege” the book imagines a scenario and explains how “scholars” describe white privilege, rather than recounting concrete ways in which white privilege actually works. The book begins with an imaginary scenario and then offers two ways of interpreting it, practicing the core of what CRT is all about concerning narrative and interpretation. CRT is about “making sense” of these kinds of events, discourses, etc.[5] For example, the book makes sense of “merchants who smile” as the workings of white privilege.[6] Usually, “making sense” of something means race and racism are said to be the cause and shaping influence.

The question inevitably arises, who’s narrative matters? CRT says, “Minority status…brings with it a presumed competence to speak about race and racism.” Therefore, “The ‘legal storytelling’ movement urges black and brown writers to recount their experiences with racism and the legal system and to apply their own unique perspectives to assess law’s master narratives” (11). In other words, the stories of the oppressors (i.e. white people) do not matter in the end because the “dominant racial group cannot easily grasp what it is like to be nonwhite”.[7] Only the stories of the oppressed (i.e. nonwhite people) matter.

A person’s story is vital. However, in the worldview of CRT stories do not lead to more investigation to find evidence. Stories are the evidence. Thus, “Stories can name a type of discrimination (e.g., microaggressions, unconscious discrimination, or structural racism); once named, it can be combated.”[8] Notice the immediate move from story-telling, such as claiming someone unconsciously discriminated against you, to a guilty verdict and a response of combat. This seems to be why it is normal for the book to shy away from concrete data and evidence and lean on what “Some writers believe…”[9] or what was “likely”[10] in a situation or what some “scholars…write”[11]. The impression from the book is that something is true so long as a nonwhite person or a “scholar” said it is.

The ultimate problem with this way of substantiating such a radical worldview concerns assumptions and reinterpretation. For example, in an imaginary scenario about a man being rude and speaking in a superior manner to a “beggar”, the author assumes in this imaginary scenario the presence of not just “classism” but also “racism” and “sexism” (19). Where the “racism” and “sexism” came from is totally unclear. Can we level accusations like “sexist”, “racist”, and “classist” based merely on what we think is going on in someone’s mind, heart, or subconscious? CRT seems to think so.

In light of the arguments of the book Delgado questions with hope, “Might critical race theory one day diffuse into the atmosphere, like air, so that we are hardly aware of it anymore?” (158). It is said often that CRT is just a single tool to address a single issue. However, CRT offers a comprehensive worldview. Inherently, it is not something that can be used at others times but not at others. It intends to actively change nearly everything.

In this focus on race, racism, power, and oppression, CRT is not focused on (sinful) hearts producing racism. Rather, “Critical race theory not only dares to treat race as central to the law and policy of the United States; it dares to look beyond the popular belief that getting rid of racism means simply getting rid of ignorance and encouraging everyone to ‘get along’….racism is part of the structure of legal institutions…”’ (XVI). CRT is focused on structures, systems, processes, rules, unwritten rules, and so on. For example, CRT takes up issue with capitalism. CRT questions if “something inherent in the nature of our capitalist system ineluctably produces proverty and class segregation” and thus “our attitudes toward them” are irrelevant (20).

It is explicitly clear that CRT is about nothing less than revolutionary change to American society and government. CRT “…questions the very foundations of the liberal order, including equality theory, Enlightenment rationalism, and neutral principles of constitutional law” (3). CRT “contains an activist dimension. It tries not only to understand our social situation but to change it” and “to transform it for the better” (8). This is perhaps why the author praises scholars having “lively exchanges with Marxist scholars”, wishing this was something on the “American scene”.[12] In the end, CRT is about “aggressive, color-conscious efforts to change the way things are” in order to “ameliorate misery”. CRT is about reconsidering our concepts of equality, civil rights, and national security.[13] In other words, it seems there is nothing about America that CRT is not interested in possibly changing.

In the conclusion of his book, Delgado looks to the future to ask what it will look like in America. What he says reveals the goal of CRT. He asks, “Will this power shift occur peacefully or only after a long struggle?” (153). In other words, whites hold oppressive power over nonwhites but a power shift is the goal, according to the book. Here he asks whether it will happen peacefully or not.

On the one hand, he says the shift may happen peacefully. On the other hand, Delgado says the “white establishment may resist an orderly progression toward power sharing….As happened in South Africa, the change may be convulsive and cataclysmic” (154). In other words, the “white establishment” may resist and cause a shift that is not peaceful. He continues, “If so, critical theorists and activists will need to provide criminal defense for resistance movements and activists…” (154-155). Here, Delgado is preparing for how to best work through a non-peaceful transfer of power.

Part of the way the CRT movement will bring about this shift in power is through boycotting. “Those efforts will include measures, such as economic boycotts, aimed at increasing minority representation in the media…” (155). This discriminatory behavior is not about boycotting criminal institutions but businesses, organizations, politicians, etc. who may be upstanding organizations and citizens. This is all based solely on their skin color or some other oppressed category. The CRT movement will also put forward measures to assure certain mayors, senators, and members of Congress are people of color (157).

The ultimate goal of this shift, transfer, or revolution is equity, not equality. For CRT, there is a problem with merely “affording everyone equality of opportunity” rather than being able to “assure equality of results” (29). In other words, CRT wants to assure everyone reaches the same place of success. CRT takes issue with the mere idea of “affording everyone equality of opportunity”. Rather, we should “assure equality of results” because for CRT “fairness” means “equal results”.[14] ). Again, this makes sense of why the book praises scholars having “lively exchanges with Marxist scholars”.[15]

The revolution CRT wants to enact is not as innocent as it wants to seem. In responding to accusations of “reverse discrimination”, the book argues that perhaps “white” people deserve to be discriminated against.[16] “If we take this perspective, then no white member of society seems quite so innocent”.[17] In other words, rather than denouncing discrimination based on skin color, CRT takes a perspective that white people are not “quite so innocent” and thus discrimination against white people may be thoroughly justified.

CRT shares the exact ideology it rightly denounces: discrimination and partiality based on skin color. CRT rightly denounces racism and partiality but then immediately embraces those ideologies as tools for righteousness and morality. In the end, CRT looks towards a utopia where all people end up in the same place through the unlikely means of discrimination and partiality.

Why does this matter? Why, as a Christian pastor, would I take time to consider these things? The more thorough answer to that can and should be found here. But a short answer might suffice: this matters because Christians should not embrace the ideologies that birth racism, such as partiality. Christians shouldn’t embrace worldviews that lack such substantiation. And because at the heart of it all, because as Christians are embracing the worldview of the modern social justice movement the Gospel is being compromised in various ways tied up in the complexities of this matter.

Perhaps concluding with the following quote from R.C. Sproul is appropriate:

“God has chosen to save the world through the foolishness of preaching the gospel…The power is in the gospel, and the gospel has a certain required, specific content. It has to do with the person and work of Christ, who came as our Redeemer. He bore our sins on the cross, was raised for our justification, and promises that all who put their trust in Him will participate completely in the inheritance that the Father gives to Him, which is by faith. That is what we should be preaching. That is where the power is. The preaching of the gospel has been at the forefront of every revival in church history that has had an impact on the world.”[18]

 

Footnotes

[1] Richard Delgado & Jean Stefancic, Critical Race Theory: An Introduction, 91

[2] Ibid 91

[3] Ibid 45

[4] Ibid 45

[5] Ibid Foreword

[6] Ibid 92

[7] Ibid 46

[8] Ibid 51

[9] Ibid 118

[10] Ibid 123

[11] Ibid 90

[12] Ibid 109

[13] Ibid 113

[14] Ibid 132

[15] Ibid 109

[16] Ibid 91

[17] Ibid 91

[18] Truths We Confess, 91-92