Thread by @docrussjackson

#THREAD

'Critical race theory' is a theory critical of racism.

NOW do you understand why only 'certain types' strongly object to it?

Ironically, those MOST intolerant of #CRT are often the most vocal about free speech & most critical of the supposed 'intolerance' of the Left!

Critical race theory is an academic sub-discipline, loosely organized a framework of legal analysis, based on the premise that race is not a 'natural' feature of physically distinct subgroups, but a culturally invented category, often used to oppress & exploit people of colour.

The overwhelming consensus in modern science is that 'race' is a 'social construct' - an identity which is assigned based on rules made by society.

While partially based on physical similarities within groups, race does not have an inherent physical or biological meaning.

Social conceptions & groupings of races have varied over time, often involving folk taxonomies that define 'essential types' of individuals based on perceived traits, eg hair, facial features or skin tone, but today, scientists consider such biological essentialism obsolete.

Almost everyone now understands why it is only right to discourage 'racial' explanations for collective differences in both physical & behavioral traits: one's supposed 'race' in no way defines what kind of person you are or how you behave. Culture influences behaviour, not race.

While there is scientific consensus that essentialist & typological conceptions of race are untenable, scientists around the world continue to think about 'race' in wildly differing ways. Many in the scientific community suggest the idea of race is inherently naïve or simplistic.

Others argue that, among humans, race has no taxonomic significance because all living humans belong to the same subspecies.

Critical race theorists hold that racism is inherent in the law & legal institutions of the USA - in other words, that institutional racism is real.

Critical race theorists hold that racism is inherent in the law & legal institutions insofar as they contribute to creating & maintaining social, economic, & political inequalities between whites & nonwhites, especially African Americans, so they try to understand & research it.

Like any emerging academic (sub)discipline, there is debate & disagreement about exactly what it is, & about how realistic or useful it may be. This is how knowledge works: people have ideas - theories - which are critiqued & tested against evidence to see if they are sensible!

Ideas & theories in every field of knowledge are constantly emerging, evolving & withering: all are subject to critique & testing. Some theories become dominant within a particular discipline - contributing to a 'dominant paradigm' - while, others are much less influential.

Critical race theory is no different: some scholars think it valid & useful, others don't! While there is considerable variation within the field, there are several general propositions - or 'basic tenets' - regarding race & racism that many critical race theorists would accept:

First, race is socially constructed, not biologically natural.

The biogenetic notion of race (idea that the human species is divided into distinct groups on the basis of inherited physical & behavioral differences) was finally refuted by genetic studies in the late 20th century.

Social scientists, historians, and other scholars now agree that the notion of race is a 'social construction' - although there is no consensus regarding exactly what the social construction is, & 'social constructionism' is itself a contested sociological theory.

Some CRT theorists hold that race is an artificial association or correlation between a set of physical characteristics - eg skin colour, hair texture - & an imagined set of psychological & behavioral tendencies, conceived as either positive or negative, good or bad.

They argue the assumed associations have been created & maintained by dominant groups (in the US, whites of western European descent) to justify their oppression & exploitation of other groups on the basis of the latter’s supposed inferiority/immorality/incapacity for self-rule.

Second, racism in the US is 'normal', not aberrational: it is simply the ordinary experience of most people of colour, who experience racism & discrimination in their everyday lives.

There is a great deal of evidence that outcomes in many areas of life are inferior for poc.

Extreme racist attitudes & beliefs are less common among whites nowadays. & explicitly racist laws & legal practices—epitomized by the Jim Crow laws enforcing racial segregation & denying basic civil rights to African Americans in the South—have been largely eliminated.

However, most people of colour continue to be routinely discriminated against or otherwise unfairly treated in both public & private spheres, as demonstrated by numerous social indicators.

For example, African Americans & Hispanic Americans are on average more likely than similarly qualified white people to be denied loans or jobs; they tend to pay more than whites for a broad range of products and services (e.g., automobiles);

they are more likely than whites to be unjustly suspected of criminal behaviour by police or private (white) citizens; and they are more likely than whites to be victims of police brutality, including the unjustified use of lethal force.

If convicted of a crime, poc, particularly African Americans, are generally imprisoned more often & for longer periods than whites who are found guilty of the same offenses; predominantly Black or Hispanic neighbourhoods tend to receive fewer or inferior public services.

On average, Blacks & Hispanics also receive less or inferior medical care than whites & consequently lead shorter lives.

A more controversial area of critical race theory concerns what are now called “microaggressions.”

Microaggressions are verbal or behavioral slights, generally subtle & often unintentional or unconscious, that communicate a stereotype or negative attitude toward a person of colour & thus indicate an implicit bias based on race.

In a real-life case, a white professor in conversation with colleagues in a campus building, saw a Black student walking down the hall & immediately exclaimed, loudly enough for the student to hear, she should have locked the door to her office because she left her purse there.

The common occurrence of racial microaggressions, theorists argue, is indicative of the pervasiveness of racist attitudes even among people who consciously reject racism, & their cumulative effect on people of colour can be psychologically devastating.

Third, owing to what CRT scholars call “interest convergence” or “material determinism,” legal advances (or setbacks) for people of colour tend to (not always, but tend to) serve the interests of dominant white groups.

Thus, the racial hierarchy that characterizes American society may remain unaffected or in some cases even be reinforced by ostensible improvements in the legal status of oppressed or exploited people.

An example might help explain:

Perhaps the most provocative argument offered in support of this thesis was the suggestion by Derrick Bell, an intellectual forefather of CRT and the first Black tenured law professor at Harvard University.

Bell argued that the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Brown v. Board of Education (1954), which overturned the segregation-supporting “separate but equal” doctrine, occurred when it did not out of simple altruism or anti-racism, but occurred for several reasons:

(1) elite whites were concerned about potential unrest among Black former soldiers who had fought bravely for their country in World War II and the Korean War but were now expected to return to lives of oppression and exploitation by whites; and;

(2) the world image of the United States as an egregiously racist society threatened to diminish American influence among developing countries and to undermine the country’s strategic efforts in the Cold War against the Soviet Union.

The Brown decision was a product of 'interest convergence': the decision of the US Dept of Justice to side with proponents of desegregation was influenced by a raft of secret communications from the US State Dept regarding the need to improve the country’s image abroad.

Fourth, members of minority groups periodically undergo “differential racialization,” or the attribution to them of varying sets of negative stereotypes, again depending on the needs or interests of whites.

Such stereotypes are often reflected in popular culture (e.g., in movies & TV) & literature as well as in the news media, & they have even influenced the content of history curricula in public schools.

Before the mid-20th century, for example, Blacks were widely conceived & depicted as simpleminded, childlike servants & labourers who were content in their subordination to (& segregation from) whites.

Following civil rights protests that challenged the unjust domination of American society by whites, Blacks (& especially Black men) came to be viewed as natural-born criminals prone to violence or as lazy leeches living off social welfare programs paid for by hardworking whites.

Fifth, according to the thesis of “intersectionality” or “antiessentialism,” no individual can be adequately identified by membership in a single group: An African American, for example, may also identify as a woman, a lesbian, a Trump-supporting Libertarian, a Christian etc.

Sixth, and finally, the “voice of colour” thesis holds that people of colour are uniquely qualified to speak on behalf of other members of their group (or groups) regarding the forms and effects of racism.

This consensus has led to the growth of the “legal storytelling” movement, which argues that the self-expressed views of victims of racism and other forms of oppression provide essential insight into the nature of the legal system.

Various aspects of CRT have been criticized by legal scholars & jurists from across the political spectrum. Some critics fault CRT for its apparent embrace of 'postmodernist-inspired skepticism of objectivity & truth', as evidenced in applications of the “voice of colour” thesis.

Others have accused critical race theorists of undervaluing the traditional liberal ideals of neutrality, equality, & fairness in the law & legal procedures & of unreasonably spurning the notion of objective standards of merit in academia & in public & private employment.

Critics say CR theorists are too quick to interpret any racial inequity or imbalance in legal, academic, or economic outcomes as proof of institutional racism, & also unfairly treat any external criticism of their approach, however well-meaning, as evidence of (latent) racism.

Criticism of any particular academic theory is completely normal, but usually takes place within academic institutions using the academic conventions of eg peer-review & debate in academic conferences. Occasionally, as with CRT, academic theories spill out into the wider society.

The long-standing problem of anti-Black racism in the USA drew sustained & sympathetic national attention in the 2010s following the acquittal of an American man on charges of murder for having shot & killed an unarmed Black teenager whom he perceived as “suspicious.”

That incident & several later unjustified killings of Black people by police triggered demonstrations in cities across the country, spurring growth of a #BlackLivesMatter movement, formed in 2013 & dedicated to combating racism & anti-Black violence, especially police brutality.

In response to continued demonstrations & opinion polls indicating nationwide sympathy for #BLM, Trump & his allies explicitly endorsed well-worn racist stereotypes by castigating BLM protesters as “thugs” & falsely accusing them of violent attacks on police & private property.

In an effort to deflect public attention from the problem of racism & manufacture a provocative social issue that would galvanize the US Right, Trump & other Republicans attacked CRT, characterizing it as a false, anti-American creed of radical leftists & anti-white racists.

They additionally warned that "leftist" teachers were attempting to indoctrinate America’s children by teaching CRT in public schools.

This culture war inspired technique of shifting public opinion away from racism was imported to the UK in almost the exact same form.

In reality, owing to its complexity, CRT in its fully developed form was being taught only in law schools, colleges, & universities—though some generalized versions of some of its most basic claims did appear in the curricula of some public schools.

Some Republican-led states have BANNED any suggestion that racism is entrenched in the US; that poc are oppressed because of their race; that whites may harbour racist attitudes of which they are unaware; that whites continue to enjoy a variety of benefits generally denied poc.

In practice, the bans tended to discourage any teaching, especially at the middle- & high-school levels, that presented nonstandard histories of #racism in the US or explored its real-world nature & effects.

Decent people will consider the evidence & draw their own conclusions.

CRT has influenced scholarship in fields outside the confines of legal studies, including women’s studies, education, American studies, & sociology.

CRT spin-off movements formed by Asian American, Latinx, LGBTQ, Muslim, & Native American scholars have also taken hold.

#BLM✊

Most of this #THREAD is taken from an article in the online Encyclopedia Britannica, by Brian Duignan. 🙏

britannica.com/topic/critical…