I’m thinking, of course, about the recent ruling by the Florida Department of Education banning the precepts of CRT in the schools. The governor of the state has declared that not only is the lens of CRT unnecessary, it is actually damaging in that it teaches kids to hate each other and to hate our country.*
Wow. That’s pretty strong stuff, and if it were true, I, too, would be concerned. But, of course, it isn’t true. The purpose of teaching about racism isn’t to stir up hate, but to foster understanding of the experiences of people of color, the systems that perpetuate racial inequity, and the responsibility we all have to work toward racial healing that can only come about when we face the past and try to do better in the future.
So what is CRT? As I tell my students, it’s okay to be against something, but first you have to know what that something is before you can be sure you’re against it. Since I used CRT as the organizing framework of Race Among Friends, my book based on research with high school students who explored race as part of their literature curriculum, I’ll draw from that text in my description of CRT. Originating in legal scholarship, CRT examines the intersection of race and power and, over the last several decades, has become a tool to analyze and critique inequity in general and, particularly, in education. Here are the key concepts of CRT that I used in my analysis of what went on among the high school students I studied:
- While CRT recognizes that factors like gender and social class are also important in explaining inequity, it views racism as a contemporary and persistent problem.
- Critical race theorists believe that the experience of racism on one level or another is typical for people of color. Hence, although it would be great if we could be “colorblind,” that doesn’t work because if we can’t admit that race still affects people’s lives, we can’t do anything to correct or improve that state of being. Therefore, being colorblind only benefits the group with the vested interest (whether consciously or unconsciously) in maintaining the status quo.
- CRT stresses that racism is not only about individual prejudice (although that certainly still exists), but insists we look at the past and present systems that keep us from racial equity. These systems can work on the large scale or in more contained environments. For example, I found that the system called “tracking” (separating students based on supposed academic ability) within the individual school I studied stopped African American students from reading certain literature that would have benefited them. Moreover, the white students at the school were also affected by this practice because they were kept from hearing the voices of their classmates of color on the very issue that affected them most. Although my specific area of study was race in education, CRT looks at other systems as well, such as housing, health, criminal justice, and voting rights. It requires that we analyze policies and practices in these areas in terms of their effects on people of color.
- Because racial inequity still exists, societal transformation toward racial equity is the goal of analysis through CRT.
- Lastly, critical race theorists note the importance of hearing the voices of people from groups targeted by racism (in its past and present forms). This can’t happen until whites become aware of how race continues to function in our society and commit to seek real change. Hence, the term, “woke,” has become a sometimes maligned buzzword describing this awareness.
Like CRT itself, the sentiments behind these arguments are not new, and can be understood through the lens of another theory (perhaps the next to be banned), called Racial Identity Theory. Racial Identity Theories (there are actually more than one) look at how identifying with membership in one or more racial groups influences people’s identity—how they think of themselves as evidenced by beliefs, feelings, behaviors, etc. I won’t go into the detail of these theories because it would take too long, but I will say that according to white racial identity development theory, it is not unusual for whites to experience feelings of anger or guilt when faced with the idea that racism still exists and that whites, whether they know it or not, benefit from it. (This is where the idea of “white privilege” – yet another term to be banned— comes from. White privilege doesn’t mean that all whites are racist, or that all whites are rich, or that whites haven’t worked hard to earn their money or societal positions. It does mean that as members of the dominant culture we (whites) benefit from the systems that keep people of color from many societal advantages. And, it's important to remember that not all members of the dominant culture are equally privileged because other factors like gender, social class, religion, etc., are important, too).
As I was saying, the feelings of anger currently aimed at CRT are not new. Many of the white students I worked with during my research felt as if they were being blamed for racism, although that was not our intent (as we explicitly stated many times). So, although I’m saddened, I can’t say I’m totally surprised at the current furor in some circles over CRT. The anger is not new, but has merely found a new channel of expression. It’s easier to be mad at a theory such as CRT than to be angry at the actual inequity it seeks to expose, especially if that inequity is not aimed at my particular group. As a white person, it’s painful to admit that something as ugly as racism still exists and, what’s worse, that I might benefit from it. That acknowledgment may require a collapse and restructuring of things I believed to be true. So, when first faced with these ideas, it’s not hard to understand why whites might react negatively. However, according to Racial Identity Theory, if we look at these feelings of guilt, blame, and anger as part of the developmental process of figuring out our racial identity, we can hope that whites will be able to grow past these feelings and eventually come to understand their important role as allies to people of color.
So, while the anger isn't new, what is especially tragic is the focus of that anger toward the making of school policy that forbids teachers from engaging in developmentally appropriate and open conversations about race among K-12 students.
At the proper age and developmental level, our students deserve to grapple with these tough issues. Does everyone have to agree on everything? No, but all students should be given the opportunity to express their points of view, based on their experiences, and to come to understand the points of view of their classmates and peers. All students deserve to hear about how race affects the lives of those around them. This can’t happen if we shut down conversations about present racial inequity, no matter how uncomfortable or angry those conversations make us feel. If parents believe their children are being "indoctrinated" by a particular perspective that they disagree with, a more productive response would be to insist on a curriculum that encourages healthy, respectful discussion and debate about the topic from multiple standpoints. This would serve the dual purpose of exposing students to multiple perspectives and of modeling civil discourse among concerned citizens, something severely lacking in public dialog of late. Isn't that one of the goals of education?
