Critical Race Theory: What Does It Actually Mean?

In recent years, a culture war has developed on the front lines of our education system, as parents, students, teachers, and school administrators are locked in a fight for the cultural essence of America. The term “critical race theory” has fraught relationships in schools, twisted the minds of the brightest in academia, and has been enlisted as a political tool to garner votes for both parties. However, most Americans on either side have minimal to no knowledge about critical race theory, what it means, and why is it such a cultural flashpoint in modern American society. 

What is Critical Race Theory?

According to Encyclopedia Britannica, critical race theory is the concept and belief that race is not a biological construct naturally designed to designate people with certain traits, but a social one to justify one race’s dominance over another. It goes on to say that in America, racism is not unnatural, but in fact the norm which is present in every social, economic, legal, and political institution in our country. There are two main precepts of critical race theory: the social construct of race and the prevalence of racism in the U.S, along with interest convergence. 

1. The Social Construct of Race

For centuries, the field of genetics and the scientists leading it believed that race is a biological construct, and that unique, heritable traits were passed down according to race. However, in the last century, most scientists agree that race is not a biologically created construct, but one created by humans to justify the superiority of one race over another, especially in America. According to Scientific American, between Africans and Europeans today, there is not a single genetic trait that is the same for all Africans and different for all Europeans (or vice versa). Moreover, over the last 500 years, the intermixing of ethnic populations globally has nullified the use of race, according to many CRT proponents. In the U.S., specifically, race has been used to justify the dominant group (Americans of European descent) oppressing smaller minorities, such as blacks, Native Americans, and even poorer whites. Over the centuries, this tool of race has been used to show how many of the groups listed above are enemies of the state, incapable of making their own decisions, are naturally not as intelligent, and need help to live a good life (white savior complex). 

1. The Normality of Racism in America

As a result of the social justification and construct of race in America, the next piece in the puzzle, according to CRT believers, is the normality and subconscious acceptance of racism in America. This concept harkens back to other hot-button issues regarding race in America today, including police brutality and systemic racism. On average, Hispanics and Blacks live in poorer neighborhoods, due to racial zoning laws and the white flight which took place in the 1950s, shifting the concentration of wealth from the cities to suburban areas. In addition, the overall quality of life is less among Hispanics and Blacks than whites, in terms of 1) health; these groups live in areas with poorer air quality, less access to nutritious food, more likely to develop chronic diseases, and many do not have stable homes. In terms of law and justice, Black men are more likely to be pulled over, and many times, unreasonably arrested, than their white and Asian counterparts. They serve longer sentences, and about 65% of all prisoners in our prison system are either Black or Hispanic. With all of these figures in mind, critical race theorists came to the conclusion that racism might have gone down in recent decades with the civil rights movement and more widespread acceptance of racial equality, racism is so rooted in the institutions of our nation that it’s effects create an unfortunate reality for many in these marginalized communities. 

1. Interest Convergence

In the 1970s, a tenured Harvard Law professor named Derrick Bell was analyzing some of the most important Supreme Court decisions of the previous decades. He looked over many, but the one case which caught his eye was Brown v. Board of Education, the case which successfully desegregated public schools in America and set the stage for future civil rights progress. According to Bell, the logic of the Supreme Court’s decision was flawed, considering that up until that point, Plessy V. Ferguson was the indisputable precedent for all areas of American life, establishing the “separate but equal” doctrine, allowing many institutions to give less robust opportunities to those in the black community. With this in mind, Bell came to the conclusion that there were other factors in play behind this decision, including 1) the black veterans who served in both WWII and the Korean War, who were not likely to return to a state of second-class living, and 2) the bolstering of America’s image abroad in the wake of the Cold War. Given that tensions were rising between the two blocs of democracy and communism, there were fears that Russia would shine a light on America’s racism and prove its incompetence as a world leader. Many years after, a legal historian named Mary Dudziak backed Bell’s claims, filing secret communique to the Justice Department to pass this judgment to improve America’s image globally, especially in the Third World. Thus, this was the rare occasion where the interests of minorities and of the U.S government aligned, allowing for desegregation to happen. 

Interest convergence even happens today, according to CRT proponents, and is universal among all minorities and marginalized groups. 

1. Differential Racialization

In American society, many groups of people are depicted in certain ways, leading to the development and widespread acceptance of racial and ethnic stereotypes which are detrimental to the quality of life for said groups. One such group that has always been portrayed in American popular culture negatively is the African-American community. Before the civil rights movement, blacks were cast as mindless, low-IQ people who needed guidance from their white masters, and were accepting of their societal subordination. After the mass changes in American society regarding race in the 20th century, the image of blacks began to change. Now, they were seen as dangerous criminals, and were naturally violent and aggressive people. Furthermore, the attacks on hip-hop culture by many politicians are a modern example of differential racialization, even though rap and hip-hop are now universally enjoyed by Americans of many different backgrounds, races, ethnicities, and creeds. Even though the type of depictions has changed, their connotation has not changed for many racial minorities, becoming the final facet of critical race theory. 

Arguments Against Critical Race Theory: 

CRT has become one of the most controversial topics in the last few years, involving everyone from politicians, to students, teachers, and parents. While critical race theory is accepted by many, there are some arguments against the validity of CRT, allowing it to be taught in schools and others. Others say that it paints certain groups with the same brush (e.g all whites are oppressive and all blacks are victims). The primary argument from many parents and politicians, however, is that it gives many young Americans an unpatriotic and negative viewpoint on American history due to the harsh language of the theory. 

To Wrap Up: 

As always, I’m here to give you the facts; what you decide is entirely up to you. Critical race theory is the belief that racism is not only normal, but embedded into every institution in our country. Key points include how race was used as a social justification for the oppression of certain minority groups and the normality of how race affects these groups today. In addition, interest convergence tells how only when the interests of the many meet that of the few, then only change occurs, and finally, how the portrayal of racial minorities has changed in American popular culture. There are opponents who argue about the complexity of the topic, and about it being taught in schools. Furthermore, these opponents also believe that it paints America in a negative light, and would hurt the moral fiber of the nation. The heart of the problem, as is many times in our nation, is people telling others what to think, not how to think. 

I hope with this article and further research, you can make an informed and well-developed viewpoint on this critical issue.