I’ve been asked a million times for a short introduction to Critical Race Theory that hits the high points in a quick, straightforward way. Most people will have heard of Critical Race Theory by now, but in case you haven’t, it’s a particular way of thinking about race and racism that developed first at Harvard Law School from the late 1970s through the early 1990s. Its stated objective is to question whether the Civil Rights Movement and Civil Rights Acts legislation improved the racial situation in Western nations, especially the United States. Its true objective is to re-organize the social, cultural, and legal playing field in a way that claims to reverse “historical injustices” around the issue of race, allegedly without reproducing them.
To keep this short and simple, I’ll provide you with two quotes from the book Critical Race Theory: An Introduction (third edition) by Critical Race Theorists Richard Delgado and Jean Stefancic. These quotes summarize everything that Critical Race Theory is really about in its own words.
First, Critical Race Theory views race and racism this way: race is a political construction that was invented by white people to give themselves power while excluding all other races from it, and racism is the ordinary state of affairs in society, present in all interactions, institutions, and phenomena, and effectively permanent in society (short of a full sociocultural revolution that puts them in charge). That is, Critical Race Theory assumes that racism is present in everything under a doctrine known as “systemic racism.” Quoting from Delgado and Stefancic,
What do critical race theorists believe? Probably not every member would subscribe to every tenet set out in this book, but many would agree on the following propositions. First, that racism is ordinary, not aberrational—“normal science,” the usual way society does business, the common, everyday experience of most people of color in this country. Second, most would agree that our system of white-over-color ascendancy serves important purposes, both psychic and material. The first feature, ordinariness, means that racism is difficult to cure or address. … The second feature, sometimes called “interest convergence” or material determinism, adds a further dimension. Because racism advances the interests of both white elites (materially) and working-class people (psychically), large segments of society have little incentive to eradicate it.
As you can see, Critical Race Theorists believe that people who they claim benefit from “systemic racism,” which they declare to be the ordinary state of affairs in society, want to maintain it, which is why Critical Race Theorists say virtually everyone is racist. People who are especially skilled at finding the “systemic racism” in everything are called “Critical Race Theorists.” They proceed according to a simplified version of this first assumption of Critical Race Theory, which can be expressed in the words of Robin DiAngelo this way: “The question is not ‘Did racism take place?’ but ‘How did racism manifest in that situation?’” That is, they assume racism is present in everything and look for it “Critically” until they find it. Importantly, this is assessed subjectively according to the “lived experience” of racism and does not depend upon there being any evidence of racism.
Second, Critical Race Theory does not continue the legacy of the Civil Rights Movement, as many incorrectly believe. It is against liberalism and the liberal order upon which Western societies are founded, and it rejects both equality and neutral principles of constitutional law (these were the backbone of both the abolitionist movement that ended slavery and the Civil Rights Movement). It also rejects legal reasoning and Enlightenment rationalism. This makes Critical Race Theory unreasonable, illiberal, against equality, and anti-American, by definition.
The critical race theory (CRT) movement is a collection of activists and scholars engaged in studying and transforming the relationship among race, racism, and power. The movement considers many of the same issues that conventional civil rights and ethnic studies discourses take up but places them in a broader perspective that includes economics, history, setting, group and self-interest, and emotions and the unconscious. Unlike traditional civil rights discourse, which stresses incrementalism and step-by-step progress, critical race theory questions the very foundations of the liberal order, including equality theory, legal reasoning, Enlightenment rationalism, and neutral principles of constitutional law.
Critical Race Theory believes these bedrock liberal principles upon which free societies are built are ways that discrimination can be hidden and maintained rather than overcome. As stated by Özlem Sensoy and Robin DiAngelo in their Critical Theory education manual Is Everyone Really Equal?,
[Critical] movements initially advocated for a type of liberal humanism (individualism, freedom, and peace) but quickly turned to a rejection of liberal humanism. The ideal of individual autonomy that underlies liberal humanism (the idea that people are free to make independent rational decisions that determine their own fate) was viewed as a mechanism for keeping the marginalized in their place by obscuring larger structural systems of inequality. In other words, it fooled people into believing that they had more freedom and choice than societal structures actually allow.
As you can see, Critical Race Theory presents a radically different view of our society and of us than most of us recognize or accept. They begin with the assumption of racism and look to find it. They say everyone who doesn’t do this is complicit in the problem, including just for disagreeing with Critical Race Theory. And they reject the fundamental liberal, reasonable, legal, and scientific principles upon which liberal societies operate. That is, even though they touch on real truths about race and racism in our world, they are radicals in every sense of the word, and there’s almost no reason to believe they describe reality as it is and much reason to believe they get the issue almost exactly backwards.
74 comments
I wish James Lindsay and others would quit dancing around the issue and get to the factual point.
Critical Race Theory …. and yes it remains only a Theory…. is just like so many other theories created by like believers, a theory based in Hegelian doctrine. But lets go one step further to put a name of the 9000lb gorilla in the room… Dialectics.
Without Hegelian doctrine and Hegelian dialectics, there would be no such thing as critical race theory. However, lets dissect that theory a bit. Its founded on the ideal that “The White” are the purveyors and receivers of systematic racism. However, factually, there is not one single person upon this whole earth who is factually “White? …. That term was invented by Hegelians because dialectics only work when opposites exist. Therefore they invented the terms “White” and “Black” to represent races of peoples, when factually neither exist. Without the existence of the dialectic “White” group the theory of Critical Race falls completely apart.
If one factually looks at the pigment of people, then one discovers they exist in a range from light pink to dark brown, interestingly enough these colors are all within the same spectrum. Theorists of Critical race who use Hegelian dialectics to form their theories and assumptions, refuse to accept this fact, as it negates their racial theory altogether.
Worse, in the color spectrum of human beings, there are is simply no end to the shading variation which exists in the spectrum of light pink to dark brown… there is quite literally every skin pigment in between those two ends of the spectrum.
The second failure of critical race theory is to assume one’s brain operates via the pigment of one’s skin. There physically exists no objective evidence in any medical peer reviewed journal, that establishes a link between skin pigment and human rational thought… Therefore, skin pigment does not drive human decision making, and therefore cannot be found responsible as an inherent decision-making trait (aka the false assumption that the theory identifies an inherent systemic issue forced upon one by the pigment of their skin)
In closing, the 9000 lb Gorilla in the room is Hegelian doctrine and Hegelian dialectics. One need believe in both in order to accept any theory that The White and The Black exist and that the pigment of their skin causes them to both think and react in any way. Such irrational thought, borders on the clinically insane. Americans need to understand Hegelian doctrine and Hegelian dialectics and how the both drive inept theories and postulations such as Critical race theory
There was one part in the quotes where I thought: “ok they have a point there” and it is this:
“In other words, (liberal humanism and the ideal of individual autonomy) fooled people into believing that they had more freedom and choice than societal structures actually allow.”
We are in the end all constrained by certain structures in society, perhaps not absolutely so, but at least up to a point. Although this is certainly not exclusive to certain racial groups. If we don’t belong to certain elite groups (again, this is not exclusively racial, as the critical race theorists seem to suggest), certain avenues in society are closed to us, or at least are very hard to access.
But then liberal humanism and individual autonomy is just that, an ideal. It’s always going to be imperfect. It’s still a good ideal to work from though, and a lot better than whatever it is that the Critical Race theorists would put in it’s place (smoking rubble?)
An excellent summary !
It would be an understatement to call CRT Marxist with a strongly anti family and anti Semitic core comment
Short, digestible. pieces are much appreciated! thanks!
I’m curious about the issue of falsifiability in scientific theory and critical race theory. What I am understanding is that CRT can’t be proven wrong and, it seems according to proponents of CRT, any objection to CRT is used as evidence of racism and further solidifies CRT. In my training as a scientist and philosopher, I came to understand that to be a theory, it had to be able to be proven wrong. Since CRT can not be proven wrong, then it is not a theory. If it is not a theory, then what is it? I think we ought to be critical of any pseudo science masquerading as science. To protect itself against rational argument, my understanding is that CRT has placed logic and rationalism with the oppressor group, thus preventing an opportunity for a logical argument against CRT. I am deeply troubled by acts of racism and sexism AND I am also deeply troubled that we are eroding epistemic criteria foundational to a rational and positivist society.
I often experience social slights, rudeness, and apparent discrimination in favor of others over me. Sometimes I’m overlooked or ignored. My best laid plans are occasionally thwarted by the inconsideration or lack of interest of others. It’s frustrating, and often infuriating, but I just chalk it up to human nature, stupidity, or just the behavior of assholes. I’m a straight, white male (an actual XY one), but if I were black, female, gay, “transgender”, or a member of any other grievance group, I suppose it would be tempting, or even inevitable, for me to attribute anything and everything that didn’t please me to racism, sexism, straight-ism, trans-phobia, or whichever critical offence theory applied. As things are, I am systemically prevented from blaming society for my problems.
It’s not a theory, it’s an ideology. Or perhaps a form of religion?
As you say, a theory should be testable and falsifyable. This is inherently impossible with CRT because it relies on lived experience as it’s evidence. So it’s “evindence” is basically “because it feels like this to person X”. Good luck falsifying that.
“Straight black men have been described as the white people of black people.”
– Pluckrose, Helen; Lindsay, James A.. Cynical Theories (p. 129).
Substitute conservative for straight in Biden’s comment – “If you have a problem figuring out whether you’re for me or Trump, then you ain’t black’ and it can be understood in this context.
Biden’s executive orders regarding trans people in sports and the military also identify his position as an advocate for “Social Justice” – applied Postmodernism that includes the concept of intersectionality at its core.
This is in line with the assumptions and confirmation bias of CRT, which the above authors claim leave it wide open to the unscrupulous; ie. virtue signaling politicians posing as liberal activists, cynically weaponizing “Social Justice” to gain ideological supremacy and control of resource.
This site is absolutely necessary for anyone interested in or concerned about any of the varieties of critical legal, racial and gender theory that have spread malignantly from academia to the media , the Democratic Party the corporate world as well as K-12 public education.
James thank you. In reading your essay, I note that you could have substituted “Critical Race Theory” with “Critical Gender Theory”, and references to institutions devoted to fomenting racial grievance with those devoted to fomenting feminist grievance, and not altered the sense of the argument.
gmmay70-
…”I need a shower”. I smiled and chuckled. Thanks.
In other words, a pseudo-reality.
gmmay70-
“They’ve just discovered a far easier way to accomplish this. Instead of a bureaucratic shell game that runs the same risk of judicial smackdown,…’
You mention the covid lockdowns. I continue to find Americans compliance and blind faith in government re:covid safety/lockdowns, etc very disturbing!!
I have from the beginning. Americans (most, not all) have chosen to ignore logic, fact, math, and common sense. Covid has an infection fatality rate anywhere between .06 and 1.0 depending on which source is believed. Only three clearly delineated groups are at significant risk, The “test” for covid infection has no reliability….There’s so much more compelling data to show hey it’s not really a big deal for most people. It doesn’t justify the lockdowns, business closures, etc.
Fearfully, stupidly, mindlessly, Americans have chosen to relinquish their freedoms. The Patriot Act was bad enough. Covid is even worse.
American has become some country in a dystopic novel.
Need to give Americans some slack. What were we supposed to do? We had never been through something like this and the “authorities” tell us some 6 million are going to die. I freaked out like the rest of us. Sure, we know more now and there is more disobedience.
I personally am around and help my 82 year old Mother. I have my mask and hand sanitizer glued to my hip. I would not have it any other way.
Miggy-
I never freaked out about covid. I was quite irritated that I had to/still have to in a society of emotional Americans who appeared to not understand the scientific method, sterile fields, math, science, and logic. I still shake my head. Job markets have been destroyed. People are unemployed, mental health disorder has skyrocketed, the federal debt has exploded…
How old are you? Don’t answer. Did you never learn about the polio epidemic in America? Did people go crazy then? No.
So, do you believe everything government says is true? It’s rarely my intention to shock anyone, but government sometimes lies about things! Even Facebook has lies on it!! Just about every time you are shown a product ad you’re probably being lied to in some form.
Six million dead. Really. How many people have died so far? Per CDC, about 390K. Covid has been operating in America for over 1 year now. Again, per CDC covid deaths in America = 390,000, Six million is a very different number. 6,000,000 = six million. That’s one order of magnitude larger!!
By the way, the scientific community was aware that covid19 existed in about October, 2019. China, by the way, knew before that. Covid was publicized by the US government in about March, 2020. The virus has been here a lot longer than you seem to think. I can support my assertion with citation if you request.
Furthermore, how do you know the cited covid deaths were truly attributable to covid and not something else? You don’t. Don’t believe everything somebody tells you. Don’t believe everything you read.
Do your own research to see if data is supported by multiple, reliable sources!
Stop being afraid and letting your emotions dictate your behavior. Use your prefrontal cortex and think about the facts.
So, no I don’t cut Americans slack for being afraid. Three high risk groups are identified. They have grounds for concern. (When we don’t think, we become careless. It doesn’t help to be afraid.) Everyone else is basically at no risk of death or severe illness.
It is illogical to crash American’s economy to protect an infinitesimally small group of people. All people are responsible for taking care of our own health and taking precautions to safeguard it.
By the way, obese Americans (one of the three high risk groups) can lose weight. Anyone can take steps to improve diet, exercise, improve mental health, stop smoking etc. We are not powerless.
Oh yeah, the human body like a car or dishwasher wears out and eventually stops working. None of us are immortal.
Finally, there is absolutely no way the efficacy of lockdowns can ever be supported. Passengers on the first two affected cruise ships were the best hope for any sort of experimental findings. That ship, as they say, has sailed.
In the absence of experimental support, you either believe the lockdowns worked or not-the same way people believe in Santa.
I don’t care how you choose to cope with covid, just don’t force your methods on me!
Please don’t get personal. We don’t live in a country of 300 million skeptics.
I never said anything about the lockdowns. They have been a disaster.
So if there is a pandemic that really is strong enough to kill 6 million or 20 million and the authorities tell us this, what do we do? Business as usual?
Cal, Please tell me where I said anything about the lockdowns? Or forcing anything on you? You went on this long rant about things I never even touched on.
The lockdowns have been a disaster. I never said different. I could care less how you handle yourself. Where in my post did I say otherwise?
I merely stated that we have never had something like this in our generation. True. They told us right out of the gate 6 million could die. True. I personally am going to wear a mask and use hand sanitizer. True. I never said a word about what Cal should do. True.
The Government cried wolf. We know that now. But no-one really knew that for months until the data started coming out. Not even you, Cal.
The thing is, no one really knew (or knows) how strong COVID is. The biggest problem I had, and continue to have, is the reluctance of the scientific community writ large to just say “we don’t know.” It’s a totally valid response, but one that might undermine their sudden celebrity status. And of course the media is totally complicit in this…running stories about bodies stacked in ER halls and then just a week later running a story asking why people aren’t going to ERs when they need to.
Is COVID a threat? Sure, especially if you have one of the comorbidities it likes to work with. Is it the end of the world as we know it? No. Are lockdowns a massive case of overreach that predominantly impact poorer people in multiple ways (including pushing the wealthy out of the cities so they can destroy housing markets in more ‘desirable’ locations)? Yes. Will anyone ever be held accountable for that? No (especially since the most draconian lockdowns have occurred in Blue states where the leadership has been captured many times ignoring their own restrictions with no real fallout).
Yes! Business as usual… you do you. But destroying the economy is a Ridiculous option.
It’s a virus with a 99.7 percent survival rate. There are certain vulnerable groups, but most young healthy people will survive. Your mom should be careful, and I get you worrying about her, but this whole “pandemic” has been a crisis exploited for political purposes, with the American people suffering more from that aspect of it than the disease itself. Which would probably die off in a couple years like most viruses.
“State propaganda, when supported by the educated classes and when no deviation is permitted from it, can have a big effect. It was a lesson learned by Hitler and many others, and it has been pursued to this day.” ― Noam Chomsky
I’m a little loathe to dip my toe into a COVID discussion, but this seemed apt. I’m reminded of the NEJM and Lancet publishing the Sturgisphere study that warned of the dangers of HCQ, which apparently amounted to the fact that Trump promoted it, rather than any sort of actual data. The fanfare of publication was deafening, the retraction a predictable whimper. Even Retraction Watch of all places made snarky comments about Trump in the commentaries of their website, before the retraction. No retraction of their attitude after the discover of scientific malfeasance of the highest order. Alas…
Anyway, I positively referenced Emma Goldman earlier on another thread, and have just now quoted Noam Chomsky sort of positive way. I need a shower.
So far, 500,000 Americans have died from Covid-19. Compare the current death toll to that of the 1918 pandemic, 675,000. (The US population in 1920 was 106,000,000.). Yes, it is a significantly smaller proportion of the total population than 1918, but we haven’t yet matched the length of the 1918 event. I hope the several vaccines protect against the new strains of C-19, but that remains to be seen.
My guess is that Covid-19 will probably become a persistent disease which will require periodic re-vaccination and attention to infection control.
Nowhere near 500,000 people have died from corona virus in the U.S. The number is likely just over 100,000, and possibly less than 100,000. The majority of those have been elderly people already severely weakened by some other condition. The incompetence, exaggeration, and plain lying we have had from the government, the criminally alarmist mainstream news media, and biased academia have resulted in unprecedented hysteria and oppression that have been more destructive than the virus ever would have been. Possibly the worst part of it is that now we have set a ridiculous standard that will result in the return to this level of nonsense every few years when there’s a bad flu season. Don’t throw your useless face diapers away, we’re probably going to be forced back into them over and over for the rest of our lives.
Glad to read someone else sees how the majority of Americans accepting the Covid dystopia is a scary phenomenon. From the very beginning, when I didn’t see the “body bags” and the “hospitals overflowing,”when everyone I know who had Covid lived and most people I know were untouched by it, then the pushing of a vaccine for a virus with a 99.7 percent survival rate, anyone who doesn’t see the whole thing as just plain “off” is not thinking at all.
Covid-19 and the response to it have nothing to do with CRT, just as imposing the draft during total war or a conflagration has nothing to do with CRT. Sometimes survival of a society requires the suppression of normal peacetime freedoms and requires extraordinary sacrifice from some if not all, without much if any compensation. The point is that the mortality due to Covid-19 would be much higher if there were no restrictive measures, and mortality from all other sources would be much higher because the health system would be completely swamped.
Furthermore, epidemics have shown that a short, complete shutdown, followed by extremely strict travel controls, costs much less than doing half-measures or none at all. New Zealand ans Australia have demonstrated that very well. Sure, some people have to pay by losing their property and livelihood, just as in a war many are killed, but many more lives are saved and the total cost is much less than if nothing were done.
I have to say, this article is very well written. I feel so embedded in our current culture that sometimes I feel unable to see the obvious, even if my gut tells me something doesn’t add up – which is exactly what was happening with critical race theory.
The short of it is that if you start with the premise that a problem is everywhere in society, you’ll see that problem everywhere in society!
For example, if I as a gay man decide that every interaction “embeds” homophobia, I’ll identify homophobia where there really is none. I might get served last at a deli, and claim this was homophobia. Someone might not hold the door open, homophobia. I might have a bad interaction with the police whilst committing a crime – homophobia.
There’s explicit homophobia and then implicit homophobia. The way to handle both is to reach out an olive branch, befriend and become familiar to the homophobic person. Dissuade those fears, because it’s anonymity that is the main cause of hate. I can’t do that if I go around being “critical” and confrontational to every person I perceive to be a biggot, and in the process I might create more anonymity. Essentially I’ll catch more bees with honey, if I swat at them I’ll get stung instead.
Through this CRT lens, there’s no end in sight to discrimination. It’s a very negative glass half empty theory that isn’t even logically sound.
“The short of it is that if you start with the premise that a problem is everywhere in society, you’ll see that problem everywhere in society!”
The corollary in CSJ is that everything proves the hypothesis.
Anon.-
Couple thoughts here:
Please don’t “feel” your thoughts. Think them.
The majority of Americans per most recent data supports the fact nobody really cares if you’re gay. I don’t. My limits as to what is acceptable are very broad indeed. Remember, there will always be somebody who doesn’t like you, me, my mom, your mom, etc for (fill in the blank reason).Life isn’t fair. We can’t truly force nor should we someone to like us nor think in a certain way. Force is coercion. Coercion is an aggressive behavior. Aggression is unacceptable.
Agree. When one searches for a problem, one will be be found. That is problematic and makes life in society unnecessarily difficult.
Oh also, humans frequently aren’t rational beings, but they certainly rationalize.
Anon – the cycle is set in motion.
1. Adopt critical lens that racism is everywhere.
2. Perceive racism everywhere and resent society for it.
3. Become confrontational (anti-racist).
4. Others react negatively to this confrontational approach.
5. This reaction confirms ‘racism’ is everywhere.
or…
1. Adopt lens that people are good-natured.
2. Perceive goodness in others.
3. Treat others kindly because they deserve it.
4. Others react positively to the warmth.
5. This reaction confirms people are ‘good’.
If you read this and think “that’s overly simplistic and sentimental mush” I’d reply – of course it’s overly simplistic but I trust you to fill in the nuance and sentimental doesn’t mean it’s wrong.
Addendum – Note that whether ‘racism is everywhere’ or ‘people are good’ is factual is not important in either case. The believe of the things ultimately lead to reinforcing experiences confirming one or the other. But it goes further; it has real world effects on the individual and therefore on society. The question is which will result in a better society? This is one reason why I see CRT as such a pernicious ideology.
Sam-
Re your request for input on your required pledge: I would think about striking the word “liberal”. Progressives don’t term themselves “liberal” Also, “center on the individual” and “common humanity” could be deleted as well. (Ideally, use some of the same words and phrases they use.)
In “true” diversity individuals don’t exist. Humans must be viewed as monolithic blocs of competing races.
Play them. Don’t let yourself get played. I think the Woke are unable to recognize being manipulated if they believe you are validating their beliefs.
Sad that your company demands you be social crusader. Archaically, I still think one function of a corporation is to generate profit for its shareholders.
Otherwise, your work is great! Its noncommittal enough that people can read into it what they want to see and you sound sincere. Also, it’s smart to avoid using the word “think”. Focus on feelings.
Thank you for the clear and sane article. I am a public school teacher and this is good therapy. Please keep this going!!
I work for a large well-known corporation where we are now being told we have to pledge to uphold their anti-racism CRT initiative, and we are even evaluated on it in our yearly review, and asked to spell out how we will uphold it. This is what I’m thinking of putting as a response in my review. Any feedback or insights is appreciated:
“I support all aims to ensure that [company name] and all its employees commit to opposing racism, sexism, homophobia, and all other forms of bigotry. I believe in universal liberal principles that center the individual and our common humanity and thus reduce the social significance of racial categories. I feel diversity should also include diversity of thought, experience and perspective. I believe treating people as unique individuals not defined by their racial or gender identity is the best way to promote a welcoming and inclusive atmosphere.”
Hopefully others can also use this response if it’s worthy. This is a great article by the way. Very straight an to the point.
I just got moderated. Why?
My earlier post now appears and it’s unedited. What possibly flagged it for moderation?
I think sometimes their software just “forgets” and will roll someone into that status. I’ve seen it a time or two, but everything has come through unedited. It’s a “feature,” as they say.
A feature of CRT training I’ve not seen addressed (correct me if I’m wrong) much is the utter lack of independent testing/evaluation of CRT training efficacy. In other words, does it really work?
Check out this paper: https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/dobbin/files/an2018.pdf. Use the search terms: efficacy of Critical Race Training. You’ll find data there alright, but none it really says, yes CRT training works.
I believe many people already know it doesn’t work. The issue I’m addressing is the absurdity of using a treatment without any evidence it works. Rhetorical here: What’s wrong with people.
Did schools stop teaching about the scientific method?
I know, I know, it’s principals, not principles.
On another note, I frequently read Brendan O’Neill from the UK on spiked.com. Others may enjoy some of his work.
‘A feature of CRT training I’ve not seen addressed (correct me if I’m wrong) much is the utter lack of independent testing/evaluation of CRT training efficacy. In other words, does it really work?’
Oh yeah, it works just great. For the things it is really intended to do; project, demonize, shame, etc. etc. All to seize power for the Great White Marxists funding the project And just by suggesting it be tested for its purported uses using White Supremacist Oppression Tools you have proven that you are an active participant in systemic racism. / SARC
Tars-
Agree. And, funny (in a tragic way) too.
By the way, you may be interested about what the UK is doing with respect to CRT training. The UK government rejected it and demanded it stop. Here’s a piece from OCT 2020 in the Guardian discussing this: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/oct/23/uk-critical-race-theory-trump-conservatives-structural-inequality.
I think it’s helpful to read about news in other countries, not just America. Also, I think Americans should keep a keen eye on what European governments are doing; their actions frequently presage American government’s next laws, policies, etc.
Man – that Guardian article you linked to gets soooo many things wrong…
Two of my go-to sites are Quillette (Aus) and TheCritic (UK). I prefer sites which allow comments that actually try to argue and inform rather than hurl epithets and personal insults. Because although cynical and judgmental, I am human and accept that I can be wrong (and am wrong frequently). Whereas the Woke and their ilk are never EVER wrong and you’re a bigot for even suggesting it and should be cancelled.
While the UK may be trying to reject CRT and CSJ, free speech is under major attack there. There are serious proposals in Northern Ireland and Scotland to criminalize ‘hate’ speech against a smorgasbord of demographics even if uttered in private, and third-party complaints by POOBOOS (People Offended On Behalf Of Others) can be made even if said speech uttered doesn’t offend the parties involved. The SNP (Scottish National Party) is full on board with their proposed law, and considering their dominance of Holyrood they might be able to ram it through.
Here in this country I expect there may be another route that will be utilized to curb free speech, that being in the name ‘public health’. Recall how Governor Whitmer of Michigan lost her court case involving lockdowns, whereupon she simply reinstituted them through the public health department. Since criticism of the government might cause people to lose faith in government diktats and thus endanger public health, it must be suppressed.
Tars-
I noted UKs rejection of CRT training as worthy of comment precisely because of the fact the countries are speech nannies (they have been for a long time, as you also wrote). Here is a link to the Crown Prosecution Office re: all crimes including hate speech/activities and prosecution for your review: https://www.cps.gov.uk/prosecution-guidance.
I’m not suggesting the UK is an exemplar of respecting individual freedoms.
UK is a food nanny as well.
I agree with your assessment speech in the US is likely to be regulated/controlled in a covert way-as you noted, under the guise of public health. If you accept the notion that history informs, then most Americans will likely not question it. Safety first, right?
Sort of related, are you aware NYC encouraged/s its citizens to anonymously report covid health violations. Here’s a link:
https://portal.311.nyc.gov/report-problems/.
Some residents didn’t like the idea. Here’s what happened: https://thenextweb.com/insider/2020/04/22/de-blasio-coronavirus-line-flooded-karen-memes/. Oh, it wasn’t just Karen memes, pics of genitalia were sent as well.
“… lose faith in government…” Should lose be a different verb tense?
“Here in this country I expect there may be another route that will be utilized to curb free speech, that being in the name ‘public health’.”
They’ve just discovered a far easier way to accomplish this. Instead of a bureaucratic shell game that runs the same risk of judicial smackdown, they’ve all just discovered they can outsource speech suppression to the private sector. The formula here being lock everyone down so that the public square becomes the internet then let their tech donors do the dirty work. A much simpler and elegant solution.
To add a little detail from here in Edinburgh, Scotland: the proposals currently passing through Scottish Parliament for enactment in Law are (i) to criminalise reported politically incorrect thought and speech occurring in private homes (ii) to extend the concept in Scots Law of “protected characteristic” (currently awarded to abstract concepts such as “religion”) to the property of “being a woman” i.e. to elevate womanhood to the status of a religion in law, and to set aside the foundational principle of equality of all before the law.
The primary reason is won’t work is because its claims are patently unfalsifiable. Yet proponents have no problem appropriating the language of science to mask what is plainly ideology.
And the real driver, is grift:
https://www.theartnewspaper.com/news/meet-the-experts-who-root-out-racism-and-exclusion-in-the-arts
People still don’t seem to realize that this garbage is everywhere.
gmmayo70-
One wonders if America is now primarily populated with Jack Merridrew wannabes in search of a poor Piggy. It should comes as no surprise to anyone that William Golding (Lord of the Flies author) was once a schoolmaster for young students.
I find it is becoming increasingly more difficult to accept the belief that humans are prosocial creatures.
“I find it is becoming increasingly more difficult to accept the belief that humans are prosocial creatures.”
I have nothing much to add other than this gave me a dark chuckle.
The man who really started the US down the road towards rule by ‘experts’, Woodrow Wilson, pushing this view decades before he became President, was once a teacher. Wokery’s biggest proponents are also academics.
‘“… lose faith in government…” Should lose be a different verb tense?’
‘Loose’ certainly didn’t work in that context. ‘Lost’ is past tense. ‘Lose’ seemed to work best.
‘One wonders if America is now primarily populated with Jack Merridrew wannabes in search of a poor Piggy.’
The Twitterati certainly are. And they’ve certainly cowed the innumerable Piggies of the managerial class who run our institutions (as well as recruited many more who want to be on the ground floor of the new revolution). I still think a majority of people just want to be left the F**k alone, including most of the posters here. A heretical concept, apparently. To paraphrase Rousseau, people are now being forced to be Woke.
Your demand that their claims should survive the test of falsifiability is taken by them (and, by extension, the growing numbers of poorly educated, credulous converts) as verification of their claims.
I normally try to offer something at least remotely insightful or useful when I comment, but I’m afraid I have little other than to say this is a fantastic encapsulation of CRT. The closing is strong.
“Supremacy and replacement” made me think of a comment I saw regarding the ‘defund’ or ‘abolish the police’ movement. They don’t truly want to get rid of the police, they want to *be* the police.
I particularly like your observation that CRT is destructive and not constructive. The ironically named Social Constructionism vein that runs through the ideology is probably the primary driver of this. ‘Social Destructionism’ a more apt term.
Richard Delgado is white. Jean Stefancic is white. Robin DiAngelo is white. Ibram X Kendi espouses white-authored positions and ideologies plus his lineage is likely polluted by white forbears. The same goes for most if not all of the espousers of CRT and CSJ. Therefore anything they have to say about systemic racism is contaminated by their own white-centric or white-influenced bias and thus should be denounced as supportive of simply another kind of systemic racism, just of a leftist flavor.
Anti-racism IS OVERT RACISM. Period. Full Stop.
“CRT begins with a number of basic insights. One is that racism is normal, not aberrant” (Introduction, p. xvi, Delgado and Stefancic, 2000). If racism is not aberrational then it is reasonable; normal then not abnormal. This is CRT’s most important tenet and as Delgado says, “basic.” It is in stark contradiction to the tenets of the Civil Rights Movement and shatters all of our constructs about liberation and empowerment movements. It renders all of our efforts for social justice futile. That is why we find it so difficult to understand. It must be applied to a conceptual framework that is not liberal, progressive, or democratic; not constructive but destructive. We envision CRT’s goals as freedom and equality seeking. They are not. Their goals are supremacy and replacement. They look for final solutions not dialogue. Their rhetoric would be right at home in Neues Volk magazine of the 30’s. Oh sure, they believe in multiculturalism but a multiculturalism that preserves cultures and races as pure so that none appropriate from one another.
Apologies, my response ended up below.
thanks for the even shorter version
I would amend that to say that everyone has a capacity for racism, and a capacity for race blindness. Everyone has a capacity for language, but your situation determines what language. If promoting an unreasoning hatred of an enemy who looks different is productive, then the racist impulse works, If they look the same, get a different haircut, so you can tap into that impulse ( e.g. Iroquois vs Hurons). If learning to cooperate with people who look different works, then racism doesn’t. In the USA, settled by everyone in the world, with its huge racial diversity, racism is a toxic poison, and anyone seeking to bring down the US will encourage racial strife by any means necessary. Anyone who supports the US will work to eliminate the causes of racial strife. Racial inequity is a symptom of racism but to forcefully eliminate the symptom will not eliminate the disease. You don’t cure pneumonia by tying a noose around somebody’s neck to eliminate the cough, and anyone who suggests it should be viewed with suspicion, especially if they are the CEO of the Acme Rope Co.
Chris Rufo at City Journal publishes some nice work on Critical Race Theory. Randall Kennedy, a Harvard law professor also has some thoughtful pieces. Visit The Volokh Conspiracy (its written by an attorney and is not about conspiracy theories) if you want to read about various concepts /issues from a legal perspective.
On another note, James’ essay seems like an edited version of pervious posts.
I am a bit surprised not to see Rufo included here. He’s done some good work.
This does read a little like a shortened version of a previous work, but It also reads like a good introductory piece. On that note, it could use just a few hyperlinks to key concepts that lead a newly hooked reader on a type of wikiwalk around the site. Lord knows I’ve done more than my share of it here.
gmmayo70-
Agree with your assessment the piece provides good intro material.
So, James, how do we push back on CRT using “acceptable” language? I’m a Midwest dad of two children who will be inundated with this drivel.
Your next article should present useful ways – a strategy – to fight this at school boards, work DEI seminars, etc.
Thanks for all you do.
Your question is more or less answered in the last third of the Pseudo-realities article here:
https://newdiscourses.com/2020/12/psychopathy-origins-totalitarianism/
It’s not specifically about acceptable language but it’s definitely a part of the problem it describes.
I was thinking the same thing after reading this article. I hope he follows up.
It is useful to examine CRT in contrast to classical liberal values and ideas. In light of recent events (Woke-ism, Big (Tech) Brother & Biden election), one has to wonder if the end-game of CRT is actually in the hands of other interests. The odd thing about CRT and Woke-ism is that in working against classical liberalism, they may very well be working against themselves in the long run since there are certainly more powerful and illiberal political forces at work in the world today that would benefit from CRT and the Wokerati. As long as the CRT Wokerati work against constitutional freedoms such as free speech, and the inherent dignity and value of the individual person, they aid and abet domestic and foreign political players that would want more globalism, socialism, and even totalitarianism.
Your sane reasoned arguments are helping keep me sane. Even if I can’t convince a single person, including family and friends, of the critical flaws in, and danger of critical race theory, I can keep a clear head because of you and your writing. Thank you.
I agree with the two commenters above: we need these short and succinct articles that are more digestible…and shareable…and repeatable…and memorable. We definitely still need the long articles as well – it’s a ‘both/and’ kind of thing. Thanks for all that you do!
I agree!
Very good, helpful and short post. The longer articles and podcasts are great too, but these short, to-the-point articles will be disproportionately effective.
“The second feature, sometimes called “interest convergence” or material determinism, adds a further dimension. Because racism advances the interests of both white elites (materially) and working-class people (psychically), large segments of society have little incentive to eradicate it.”
Claims about “interest convergence” are potentially testable (falsifiable), and therefore scientific, aren’t they? e.g. if racism benefits whites of all classes, you would expect opposition for anti-racism policies equally strong among white elites as it is among the white working classes.
“Claims about ‘interest convergence’ are potentially testable (falsifiable)…”
One would have to control for the possibility that ‘interest convergence’ is caused by some factor other than Systemic Eurocentric White Racist Supremacy Oppression™.
Remember, also, that we are dealing here with people who pull conclusions out of thin air and then cherry-pick the data for confirmation. They interpret the very fact of asking the question as prima facie proof of the correctness of their ‘theory’.
All men are mortal.
Aristotle was mortal.
Therefore, all men are Aristotle.
Awesome article, James! This is killer!
At the same time that Marcuse and Gramski etc. were formulating the beginnings of what has now become this ‘bizarre political gestalt’ now known as Woke.
Other people were talking about “The Law of Attraction”. i.e. people who believe that ‘Racism is Everywhere’ for instance, will surely find it. ergo. Be Careful what you Wish For!
These sorts of bite-sized nuggets are incredibly useful. That’s not to imply that the longer form posts aren’t; please keep the coming. But these are very shareable.
Thank you for all your hard work.
Do you have a plan where to migrate when your website is taken down?
“Do you have a plan where to migrate when your website is taken down?”
We live in sad times where a question like this must be seriously considered.
I hope Lindsay has.
The question is whether James will be allowed to migrate. Or allowed to remain free. He thinks too much. Such men are dangerous.