Critical Race Theory: Theorist vs Activist Dimension

 

The New York Times recently described Critical Race Theory as a “framework” that found its way inside American institutions.  The Cambridge Dictionary defines “framework” as a system of rules, ideas, or beliefs that is used to plan or decide something. I’m pointing this out to suggest CRT does not lend itself to a single or simplistic definition.

Recently, former CNN political commentator Marc Lamont Hill conducted several interviews with opponents of CRT on The Black News, a show Hill hosts.

Hill began each interview by asking CRT opponents to define CRT, each opponent defined the theory as best they could, then Hill dismissed their definitions as simplistic or misrepresentations.  Hill’s rebuttal gave the impression the opponents of CRT were ill-informed.

Hill’s tactic worked well.

Following Hill’s interviews there were headlines boasting: Opponents of CRT struggle to define the term. However, in two brief exchanges with CRT opponents, Hill inadvertently made comments that highlighted why there’s been opposition to CRT in the first place.

In the first exchange, the CRT opponent listed specific incidents that he found problematic, and Hill wondered if the problem was the implementation of CRT and not the theory itself.

This is an important distinction.

Defenders of CRT are defending the original purpose of the overall theory while opponents of CRT are objecting to how the theories are put into practice.

In the second exchange, the CRT opponent told Hill CRT abandoned Martin Luther King Jr.’s dream of a color-blind society. Hill asked the CRT opponent if King’s philosophy should be taught. Yes, the CRT opponent replied, but Hill said, King stated right before his death that he believed all white people were unconsciously racist, and that’s what CRT teaches.  Then Hill asked: Shouldn’t that part of King’s teachings be taught also?

The CRT opponent was caught off-guard and dodged the question.

Hill pulled a fast one. King’s personal opinion and his philosophy are not one and the same. Hill cleverly used King’s moral authority to legitimize a basic CRT tenet. However, right-wing media outlets have circulated a clip of a black woman, Ashley Shackleford, giving a presentation on racism to show how this basic CRT tenet is implemented in real time.

(Shackleford is not a CRT scholar. During Hill’s interviews when CRT opponents mentioned objectionable tenets of CRT, Hill asked them if a CRT scholar had ever expressed the concept. According to Hill, if a CRT scholar didn’t make the claim, then that particular tenet isn’t associated with CRT. But the 2001 textbook – Critical Race Theory: An Introduction – stated, “Unlike some other academic disciplines, Critical Race Theory contains an activist dimension.” For argument’s sake, Shackleford belongs to that activist dimension.)

The clip showed Shackleford in front of a group of white people. Behind Shackleford there was a presentation board that said: All WHITE PEOPLE ARE RACISTS.

Shackleford explained:

I put this up because I really want every white person in the room to know up front that this is what we’re dealing with. There will be no coddling of white tears. We’re not going to discuss ‘oh, maybe some of us are going to work it out.’ No, you’re always going to be racist. Like people of color and black folk [are always] being dehumanized, actually everyone is dehumanized by white supremacy [but white people] are born into a life not to be human, and that’s what white people are taught to do, be demons. So, in this particular way, white people are all racist.

Obviously, this is an extreme example of theory vs. implementation, but it clearly demonstrates why there is opposition to CRT, especially when the activist dimension of CRT can’t be distinguished from its theorists.

First published in the New Pittsburgh Courier 6/23/21