My first brush with Critical Race Theory (or CRT) came back in the 1990’s, when it was introduced alongside others in a graduate research methods seminar at UMass Amherst, where I was pursuing a doctorate in education. Its main premise, that racism is systematically interwoven into American legal and social institutions in ways that are used to oppress people of color, challenged us to think about racism in a different way. We all claimed not to be racists, meaning that we were ‘color-blind’ in our personal and professional relationships. However, CRT is based on the concept that racism permeates American society, leaving people of color at a disadvantage socially, economically and in almost every other way. As a framework for research in education, the theory functions as a guide for investigating how racism is constructed on specific situations and how it impacts a learning community. Several of my colleagues went on to apply all or some of the CRT framework to their explorations of racism in American educational institutions. But since my own research interests lay in a different direction–my dissertation was the result of an ethnographic study of how media was used in a Lao refugee community–I gave little thought to CRT until, thirty years later, it seemed to pop up at the epicenter of the culture wars.
Outraged parents groups, driven to action by misinformation spread by right wing political groups such as No Left Turn in Education, were loudly disrupting school board meetings and calling for restrictions or outright bans on teaching CRT in public schools. Proponents of teaching curriculum components supporting diversity, equity and inclusion were accused of teaching ‘reverse racism’. Teachers and school board members were being silenced and in many cases threatened physically if they did not openly fall into line. As of November, 2021, nine states had passed anti-CRT legislation.(1)
But wait. Was this the same CRT that I had come across in graduate school? Digging deep into my memory banks, I wondered if this was the same CRT I had heard about in graduate school. If so, how on earth could an obscure academic theory applied mainly by sociologists, education researchers and legal scholars could possibly be the cause of such mayhem? Was the theory really being ‘taught’ in K-12 classrooms? Who was behind the streams of social media accusing teachers and principals of indoctrinating children and making white kids feel guilty? What was the ultimate purpose ultimate purpose of the anti-CRT movement, and how did it become a flashpoint in the culture wars?
Opponents of what is misconstrued as CRT attack its basic tenet, that de facto, systemic racism is very much alive in American institutions, but do not understand its purpose as a conceptual foundation for academic research and legal applications, not as a body of content to be taught in schools. Weaponizing the theory and conflating it with components of school curricular dealing with the realities of racism in American history and current society gave its opponents the hype they needed to undermine school policies and practices, such as those promoting diversity equity and inclusion. The anti-CRT rhetoric rejects the teaching of the hard truths of slavery and the genocidal conquest of the native population, acknowledgement of discrimination against succeeding waves of immigrants and acceptance of the human rights of the LGBTQ community. The same movement, fueled by the same right wing political operatives, rejects of all forms of inclusive education, which seeks to celebrate racial and cultural diversity, reconcile inequalities and build positive social skills for our increasingly multicultural society. It is as if these realities these could simply be wished away by silencing teachers, censoring textbooks and excluding any discussion of these issues from the school curriculum. Ultimately, it has become clear to me that this is part of a broader attack on public education, which as a cornerstone of our democracy, is aimed at educating well informed citizens who are able to think critically and act constructively.
After watching this ugly movement unfold across the country, and as a parent and parents myself, my thoughts turn to how the deep divide between proponents of inclusive education and anti-CRT parent groups can be mediated. I do believe that this is possible, but the name-calling, signs and threats must be left outside the door. Smart phones need to be turned off, and emotions held in check. Parents have a right to have a voice in their children’s education, and teachers have an obligation to educate their students’ hearts and minds in ways that prepare them for success in life and work. Both groups want what is best for the children, and with this in mind and with a dose of respectful listening, there is room to find common ground.
(1)Idaho, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas, Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, Arizona, and North Dakota) have passed legislation. Arizona’s legislation was overturned in November by the Arizona Supreme Court.
