Our History, Right or Wrong

I originally wrote this post about Critical Race Theory over the summer, but then I thought it was just too trendy. Another nothing issue for people to vent over before it disappears into the night. I should have known better. We are now a country where almost anything, no matter how flimsy, can be whipped into a political issue, and then then flogged to death by fanatics. After reading an article about a Wisconsin school board recall effort, and the centrality of this issue in the Virginia Governor’s race, I decided to revisit the topic.

My guess is that I am not the only one who had never heard of Critical Race Theory until this past spring. In fact, my guess is that most of us still could not say what it is, where it came from, who is propounding this theory, or what it teaches. And yet, it has become a rallying cry. A line in the sand that supposedly separates wholesome historical thought with Anti-American propaganda designed to destroy love for this country. Whatever it is, we cannot let it infiltrate our schools to pollute the minds of our youngest citizens.

You would think that CRT is a newly developed idea that was concocted by bitter, out of touch academics over the last couple of years. In fact, according to Wikipedia (the font of all knowledge) CRT originated in the mid-1970s in the writings of several American legal scholars. The core insight of CRT is that disparate racial outcomes are the result of complex, changing and often subtle social and institutional dynamics rather than explicit and intentional prejudices on the part of individuals (how’s that for an academic mouthful). In other words, merely making laws colorblind may not be enough to insure that application of those laws is colorblind as well. Of course, CRT is much more nuanced than that, but that’s the gist. 

Considering the prevalence of race as a driving force in the history of this country, CRT would seem essential to an understanding of the United States. At a minimum, we need to think critically to counteract two of the great historical lies of the 20^th Century. First, that the Civil War was not about slavery, but instead about states’ rights, and its corresponding fantasy that Reconstruction was an utter failure which proved that Black Americans were unfit for full participation in American political life. 

• 

• 

The second great lie is that race was a Southern problem, and not one in the North. Discrimination in areas such as employment and education obliterate this false dichotomy. In fact, a strong argument can be made that CRT is more important in analyzing what was done in the North than in the South. Southern politicians were clear and unapologetic about the Jim Crow laws and their purpose. Northern politicians were more subtle, but the racial impact of laws in Northern states was just as profound.       

• 

• 

Enforcement of drug laws over the last 50 years could be exhibit number 1 for the need for CRT. The laws themselves are race neutral, yet enforcement has impacted the black community to a much larger extent, despite the fact that study after study shows there is little disparity between illegal drug use by Afro-Americans and other races. The disparity is in enforcement. Who is targeted. Who is prosecuted. 

The failure of a change in laws remedying the effects of long term discrimination is most evident in housing. The Fair Housing Act of 1968 prohibits discrimination in housing, yet it is battling against Federal, State and Local policies that specifically sought to segregate on the basis of race. The Fair Housing Act could not simply wipe that history clean, nor could it fully change ingrained practices with a stroke of the pen. If we don’t understand this history and its continuing impact, such as in respect of the 2008 sub-prime mortgage debacle, we don’t understand this country.

There is no surprise that such critical analysis has been a staple of academia for years. Isn’t that what should be happening at universities? Shouldn’t Professors be looking deeply into their field of study to understand the underlying realities of their specialty? Shouldn’t that be as true in history and law as it is in physics and biology? 

More importantly for this debate, there is no evidence that this theory has permeated elementary and secondary schools. While slavery and its impact is, and should be, taught, school curriculums are highly unlikely to delve into issues of systemic racial impact. One wonders whether the real goal is to eliminate any discussion of this uncomfortable topic.   

The scope of proposed laws banning the teaching of CRT would seem to back up this as the real agenda. For example, Tennessee’s proposed anti-CRT bill would ban any teaching that could lead an individual to “feel discomfort, guilt, anguish or another form of psychological distress solely because of the individual’s race or sex.” In addition to this vague proscription, it restricts teaching that leads to “division between, or resentment of, a race, sex, religion, creed, nonviolent political affiliation, social class or class of people.” Those who decried PC culture as raising a generation of hyper-sensitive snowflakes are now worried about their children’s “discomfort” and “psychological distress”. Give me a break. 

Of course, this debate is not about fields of research, but about controlling narrative, and continuing a never-ending manufactured culture war. The irony is that efforts to pass laws that ban the teaching of CRT reinforce the need for critical thinking in all areas of study. We need an electorate that can analyze what is being proposed, why it is being proposed and judge the ramifications of its passage into law. That can’t be done without critical thinking, whether it’s to analyze idiotic proposals like anti-CRT legislation, or crucial ones like the rebuilding of our infrastructure. Heaven knows we can’t rely on our politicians, or our TV pundits, to provide real analysis. 

Even though the European sojourn in the Americas is a small part of world history overall (500 years within 6000 years of recorded history), it is one of the richest and most unique aspects of the human story. It has incredible highs (the Declaration of Impendence; the Lewis and Clarke expedition; the Civil rights movement) and incredible lows (the slave trade; the Trail of Tears; Japanese-American internment). It is an incredible story of mankind’s quest for human, religious and economic rights. It teaches endless lessons about the nobility of that quest, and its pitfalls. To the extent that we try and pick and choose within that history what makes us feel good about ourselves, and white-wash anything that makes us uncomfortable, we denigrate those who, with all their flaws, espoused the ideals that make this country what it is. And that is the real crime.