What are critical race theorists attempting to conserve? (op-ed)

 

Recently, Congressman Dan Crenshaw (R-Tx) interviewed Dr. Richard Johnson on his podcast. Johnson is the director of the Texas Public Policy Foundation’s Booker T. Washington Initiative.

When the conversation turned to Critical Race Theory (CRT), Johnson said, “The ideal of CRT was not a weapon of Dr. Martin Luther King … [The traditional Civil Rights Movement’s] mantra was equal-opportunity not equity – there is a difference. We need to combat CRT with the one-race theory of the Civil Rights Movement – there’s only the human race.”

Crenshaw added, “A truly colorblind society.”

Right now, defenders of CRT are shouting Crenshaw and Johnson aren’t critical race theorist, and their assumptions do not prove CRT rejects a colorblind society.

Exhibit A: In 2019, the University of California Press published a CRT text book called Seeing Race Again: Countering Colorblindness across the Disciplines.

Now, Marc Lamont Hill, host of Black News Tonight, recently interviewed Brown University professor of economics, Glenn Loury.  After Loury advocated for colorblindness, Hill told Loury, “CRT would absolutely push against, what they call, liberal colorblind theory, or even seeing colorblindness as an ultimate goal of society.”

Some defenders of CRT will say Marc Lamont Hill isn’t a critical race theorist either, but there are some questions here. What did Hill mean by “liberal colorblind theory” and how exactly does CRT push against it?

Exhibit B: The 2001 textbook Critical Race Theory: An Introduction, explains, “Unlike traditional civil rights, which embraces incrementalism and step-by-step progress, CRT questions the very foundation of liberal order, including equality theory, legal reasoning, enlightenment values, and neutral principles of constitutional law.”

Hill eventually asked Loury why he even advocated a colorblind approach to society.

Loury explained colorblindness, not the notion I don’t see race at all, but dealing with individuals from the human dimension should be the highest ambition an advanced multi-racial society should strive for because co-existence depends on it.

But shouldn’t a similar question be posed to promoters of CRT? If they oppose a “liberal colorblind theory” then what concepts are they attempting to conserve?

To answer that question, two opinions of U.S. Supreme Court Justices need to be contrasted.

In 1896 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Plessy v. Ferguson. That ruling established the doctrine for racial segregation laws. In Justice John Marshall Harlan’s dissenting opinion, he wrote “the constitution is colorblind and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens”, and laws that distinguish races should be unconstitutional. Harlan’s notion of constitutional colorblindness is what the traditional civil rights movement sought to achieve. However, in 1978 the U.S. Supreme ruled on Bakke v. California and upheld Affirmative Action. In Justice Harry A. Blackmun's opinion, he wrote, “In order to get beyond racism, we must first take account of race. There is no other way. And in order to treat some persons equally, we must treat them differently.”

However, critical race theorists don’t believe we can get beyond racism.

Racism is permanently embedded into the system, and the mistreatment of blacks has to always be taken into account to provide equity. Therefore, critical race theorists are attempting to conserve treating the races different, not in order to achieve equality, but as compensation for a racist past.

First published in the New Pittsburgh Courier 7/7/21