Thread by @nhannahjones

It's a failure of journalism if stories on the critical race theory "controversy" do not include the factual and contextual reporting that this is a well-planned Republican misinformation strategy and that nearly nothing being labeled critical race theory actually is CRT.

Like, basic reporting would demand that we make Republicans define critical race theory, and then we fact check that against what CRT actually is and whether CRT is actually being taught where and how Republicans claim.

Almost none of this reporting actually defines critical race theory, a clear indication that the reporters reporting on it do not actually really know what it is, nor does it question why everyone is "suddenly" talking about a legal theory that has been around for decades.

And hint: CRT is not radical if you actually know what it is. The ideal that race is embedded in the law and our nation's institutions is simply a historical fact.

I mean, just read an actual book or even an essay about critical race theorists. It's called: Reporting.

thenewpress.com/books/critical…

Teaching that racism was embedded in the American legal system is not a "divisive concept," just historical fact. This is my go-to. It is 496 pages long.

routledge.com/Race-Law-and-A…

This is why I keep saying: Newsrooms and journalists need to treat race and racism as an area of expertise. Political reporters without the grounding in the history and sociology of racism are ill-equipped to cover the political landscape of the United States.