By David M. Greenwald
Catching up on the news this weekend, I caught NY Times columnist Nicholas Kristof’s newsletter. I haven’t focused that much on critical race theory—in part because it’s not exactly new and in part because I believe most *racism* in contemporary life is explained through unconscious bias and systemic or structural racism, though there are politicians now tapping into latent racism as a political tool.
More on that in a moment.
Nevertheless, it was interesting when we ran an ACLU piece, a “nationwide attempt to censor discussions of race in the classroom is underway. These bills don’t just set back progress in addressing systemic issues, they also rob young people of an inclusive education and blatantly suppress speech about race.”
The commenters pointed to a NY Post article which noted, “Critical race theory is fast becoming America’s new institutional orthodoxy. Yet most Americans have never heard of it — and of those who have, many don’t understand it. This must change. We need to know what it is so we can know how to fight it.”
The NY Post got it right—most Americans have never heard of it and many don’t understand it, including apparently the people attacking it in the first place.
“I’m opposed to critical race theory,” Nebraska Governor Pete Ricketts told a radio show the other day. “It’s a Marxist theory … it’s really un-American.”
But when a listener asked him to define critical race theory, here’s what Ricketts said:
“The critical race theory—and I can’t think of the author right off the top of my head who wrote about this—really had a theory that, at the high level, is one that really starts creating those divisions between us about defining who we are based on race and that sort of thing and really not about how to bring us together as Americans rather than—and dividing us and also having a lot of very socialist-type ideas about how that would be implemented in our state.”
Ouch.
As the New Republic points out, “Critical race theory has been studied for decades, but it received relatively little attention in the wider cultural sphere until the past year, when conservatives adopted it as a catch-all term to demonize and discredit the anti-racist, anti-police brutality movements that sprang up in the wake of George Floyd’s murder.”
They continue: “Its academic context, which is chiefly concerned with the endemic racism in American institutions and power structures, is not actually essential to the current political discourse being promulgated by Republican politicians, conservative institutions, and the right-wing media. The conservative movement is simply wielding the academic jargon as a means to gin up a moral panic.”
Here’s the thing—we now have been focusing for the last few years on key issues such as the impact of criminal justice policies from the 1970s until this decade which exploded the criminal system and helped produce mass incarceration, disproportionately impacting Black people in particular and people of color in general.
We also have the impact of housing segregation which has produced deep pockets of poverty, and of course the legacy of enslavement.
The key question—what do we do about this and what is the role of government?
As Ed Week explains: “Critical race theory is an academic concept that is more than 40 years old. The core idea is that racism is a social construct, and that it is not merely the product of individual bias or prejudice, but also something embedded in legal systems and policies.”
And that is what I am arguing. Racism is a social construct. Moreover, while we have made progress (probably not enough) in combating individual bias and prejudice, the tricky problem is how it becomes embedded within the legal system and policies.
Even policies that look like they should be race neutral are not.
I will give a quick example—US drug policy. For reasons that perhaps made more sense in the 1980s and 1990s than now, crack cocaine had about ten times the penalty as powdered cocaine. Was that policy guided in prejudice? Probably. But it was also guided in fear and paranoia at the times that at best were only subconsciously race driven.
Yet those policies had a profound racial impact, because most of the people prosecuted for crack were Black.
Drug policy goes deeper than just that law. Most studies show Blacks and white use drugs at equal rates, and yet, by at least a six to one margin, those arrested and prosecuted are people of color.
Why is that?
One is a resource issue—police departments have put their resources into so-called high crime areas which tend to be Black and Brown neighborhoods. That means that people caught up in enforcement efforts, whether it be raids or stop and frisk, are people of color.
In fact, stop and frisk itself was ended because it appears that unconscious bias drove who got stopped, who got frisked.
We also know that not only are Black people disproportionately stopped in vehicles stops, they are disproportionately searched, even though studies show that whites are more likely to be found to have contraband—a chief reason for that is that Blacks are likely being searched based less on overt evidence and more on who they are.
Finally, there is a resource-based answer for the disparity. People living on the margins do not have the protection of doing drug deals and using drugs in the privacy and relative safety of their homes. That puts transactions and use on the streets rather than behind closed doors, leaving them vulnerable to law enforcement actions.
Add all of that up, and there are some bias-based reasons for the disparity, but there are also systemic reasons for it.
Understanding these dynamics are important. It is also important to know that racism is part of everyday life and that people who do not intend to be racist may well be perpetuating the system by failing to understand how policies that are race neutral continue to perpetuate a system that produces vast inequality.
Chief Justice John Roberts’ opinion famously concluded: “The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.”
But during oral arguments, then-justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said: “It’s very hard for me to see how you can have a racial objective but a nonracial means to get there.”
Especially when, without exploring the impacts of policies, policies that do not appear to have racial consequences, in fact, do.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
To sign up for our new newsletter – Everyday Injustice – https://tinyurl.com/yyultcf9
Support our work – to become a sustaining at $5 – $10- $25 per month hit the link:
One might suggest moving their operations to San Francisco, where you apparently won’t have any problems. And if you want to also rob the local drugstore, again – you won’t have any problems.
It’s a lot easier when the just legalize crime. But then again, you probably won’t have much investment when that occurs.
https://www.newsweek.com/video-man-shoplifting-san-francisco-walgreens-while-security-watches-sparks-furious-debate-1600994
What are they thinking, the obvious answer is they should be provided housing so they sell and do drugs while breaking the law “in the privacy and relative safety of their homes”. And if they’re homeless pedophiles or murderers housing should also be provided so they can break the law “in the privacy and relative safety of their homes”.
Of course these are higher crime neighborhoods–because these residents don’t have the same economic resources to pay for their drug habits. So they have to turn to crime to pay for them. Most crime is driven by economic circumstances, not by some inherent character “flaw” that will beaten out of them somehow.
Ron O’s resorting to anecdotes to come an conclusion the completely mischaracterizes the situation illustrates how misunderstood the relationship of economic situation to crime is.
I suspect that if you compare the average wealth/income of someone living in a high-crime area, with the average wealth of a vast number of countries (throughout the world, which don’t experience the same amount of crime), you might conclude that economic circumstances are not the primary driver.
The “anecdote” is only one example of what occurs – and is nowhere near the most serious crime that routinely occurs, in-and-around some communities.
As far as the claim that (presumably “white”) people are conducting their drug transactions in private homes, while (presumably “black”) people are forced to do so in the street (presumably because they “don’t have homes”) is not backed up by any evidence whatsoever. It’s pure fabrication, to fit an agenda.
Nor are drug offenses the primary reason that people are locked up. Or at least, that’s not what most people are concerned about.
Frankly (because I’m not), I find the incident in San Francisco more amusing, than anything else. I laugh at those who try to defend this as “normal”. It’s entertainment, and is really not a personal concern of mine.
Folks are concerned about violence and property crimes. Which are often tied-together.
I haven’t checked the statistics lately, but how much violent crime has occurred already in this country, this year? (Or, at least those incidents that are recorded?)
Actually, there’s plenty of evidence, if you’d care to look into it. Not because Blacks do not have homes but, for example, because law enforcement targets urban rather than suburban areas, because urban drug sales are more often with strangers and, thus, in public, while suburban sales are more often between friends, family, etc., in homes, college dormitories, etc.
Here’s David’s claim:
Your subsequent claim refutes what David claims, in the quote above.
As far as your claim, are you suggesting that police “target” high-crime areas for the specific purpose of discouraging street-corner drug sales? If so, I’d question that.
If police are more active in some areas, could it be because there’s “other” crime occurring as well? Often involving people robbing, assaulting, and shooting each other, for example?
For that matter, I’d question the rest of your claim, as well.
Perhaps we can get our facts straight, first. Or at least, label them as a “theory” – which aren’t necessarily supported by facts.
I’ll wait for you and David to come up with a unifying theory, rather than a conflicting one.
Ron is portraying this as an issue of not having homes, it’s more an issue of where the transactions are occurring and the vulnerability to arrest of that proximity. That’s very evident in the research on racial disparities.
I was responding to your assertion, not the article. Before claiming “pure fabrication” you might want to familiarize yourself with the issue. I recommend starting with The New Jim Crow.”
You are literally the one who is doing so:
So, if they’re doing this out in the street (and have homes), I’d suggest that they move their “business” inside of their homes. Presumably, as “white people” do, according to the argument. And for god sake, sell to your “friends” and “family” instead of strangers – as Eric suggests. 🙂
In other words, just employ the “white drug business model”, according to the nonsense presented on here. You know, the one supported by systemic racism.
Or, just do it anywhere in San Francisco, where you apparently won’t have any problems. In fact, you might even find “support” for that, in various forms.
Regardless, this is very nearly a “straw man” argument, as most folks aren’t concerned about personal drug use. They are concerned about robberies, assaults, shootings, etc. And again, that *might* be the primary reason that police are called-upon to respond in some areas, more than others.
And it might be the reason that some groups end up in prison more often, than other groups (on average).
Are you saying the answer to crime is free access to drugs? [Economic circumstances]… yeah, right…
I guess you opine that murder, assault, rape, extortion, theft, embezzlement, tax evasion, child abuse/spousal abuse, DUI’s (including, resulting manslaughter) are mostly driven by “economic circumstances”… I don’t buy that… but your are certainly entitled to you (strange) viewpoint. I just don’t share it… shoplifting, maybe, but there are other ‘drivers’ there as well…
The article says “do conservatives even understand what ‘critical race theory’ is?”…
The article sheds no light as to the ‘critical race theory’… for moderates, liberals, or ‘progressives’… it pretty much focuses on ‘alternative theories’… which have many “holes” as well…
Perhaps I missed the handing out of ‘secret decoder rings’ and secret passwords…
Good point.
What I’ve found (in regard to political arguments in general) is that one side is usually more interested in attacking the other, more than anything else (including “shedding light”).
Which of course leads to division, which otherwise might not exist. Or, at least not to the same degree.
Regardless, it does “rally the troops” among believers, in regard to either side of a particular issue. Maybe that’s the actual goal.
Truer words were never spoken. Especially ‘here’.
I think what conservatives don’t want is their kids getting indoctrinated and brainwashed by a bunch of left leaning philosophy. You know, white guilt, white shame, white privilege, white fragility, etc…
Maybe you can unpack it better than the Nebraska Governor.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/critical-race-theory
I’m not seeing “white guilt, white shame, white privilege, white fragility, etc…” in there. Are there particular tenets of that definition of CRT that you disagree with?
The current activism against critical race theory seems to derive from two main sources, IMO:
— the discomfort about any challenge to the notion that our country’s foundational documents and principles might have racist origins and outcomes. Think back to the history we were presented with in school about the American Revolution, the framers of the Constitution, and so on. There is a foundational myth (in the neutral sense of that word) that is taught to schoolchildren, and CRT challenges that. One might call that myth, as usually presented, a form of indoctrination and brainwashing. To those whose histories differ from the predominant WASP culture of the United States, it has probably always seemed like a flawed myth. CRT is intended to provide balance to that.
— it is a convenient wedge issue for political opportunists and consultants used to rile the base and try to peel off independent voters who are uncomfortable about racial issues. That is a longstanding tradition: making big issues about some athletes taking a knee, pressing hard for religious freedom to discriminate, advocating for a constitutional amendment to outlaw flag burning, objecting to same-sex marriage, and most recently opposing transgender rights and framing it as an issue of preserving or protecting womens’ sports. All of these are typical wedge issues; none is actually a major policy issue or threat to any particular group, but has great value in raising funds and rallying the proverbial troops.
It would be interesting to discuss the actual historical basis for CRT and how it could be implemented in schools. Those of us of a certain age only got the rosy version of American history. As to the wedge issues, they’ll always be with us and once they’ve milked this one for all they can they’ll just move on to something else.
Yes, I realize that liberal strategists do the same thing.
Racisms is old as human race is . No need to be black and white and American . Hutu and Tutsi were not white .
Rwanda genocide: 100 days of slaughter https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-26875506
And I would be interested in which of the six bullets people disagree with.
Apparently they’re deeply concerned about what is being taught in private schools and charter schools. I do hope the students learn that Angela Davis hasn’t been in prison since 1972.
Don, you ‘apparently’ didn’t get the whole story, if you had just clicked on the “whistleblower” link you would’ve discovered this:
https://www.city-journal.org/philadelphia-fifth-graders-forced-to-celebrate-black-communism?wallit_nosession=1
Sorry but I don’t consider city-journal a reliable source.
And just to complete the history lesson, she was acquitted of all charges. By an all-white jury.
I am uncertain why you feel that this alleged story about a class project in Philadelphia somehow negates several decades of research and writings about critical race theory.
You mean they just forgot to mention that she was acquitted? This is a perfect illustration of why they are unreliable as a source.
I found an old NY Times article on the acquittal: “ He said that the case against Miss Davis was not a frame-up in the traditional sense but he added, “If Angela Davis were not Angela Davis, she would never have been prosecuted.””
More to the point, I struggle to see what this has to do with Critical Race Theory.
You don’t have to be sorry. I don’t consider many of the sources that you use to be reliable either, but I’m not sorry about it.
In fact I remember that you don’t consider the NY Post as a reliable source but here you are quoting it in this article.
I quoted it not for the truth of what they reported but rather to illustrate the position of those on the right towards CRT
Whereas you are quoting a questionable publication in support of your position.
Whereas you often do the same thing. Kind of a pot, kettle thingy…
I disagree. I am very careful on the sources I cite and make sure when I do cite them that other sources back up the claims.
If you say so…
Disprove THAT 😐
And David, instead of slamming my source can you disprove it? Do you have evidence to the contrary?
I think you’re burden shifting.
Don, why don’t you just admit you were wrong when you snarkily stated “I do hope the students learn that Angela Davis hasn’t been in prison since 1972” when it wasn’t what was actually being put forward as I have shown.
Now wait a minute, it’s you who initially started this by attacking my source with no proof that the source is wrong. The burden is on you my friend to prove it false, you’re the one doing the burden shifting here.
The country’s foundational documents and principals do have racist origins – clearly. I’m in favor of flag burning, knee taking and other forms of expression – all legal – as well as people complaining they don’t like those things, also legal.
It is brainwashing.
That’s one way to put it. I have been calling out the WASP history taught in public schools for decades – it is clearly victor history.
CRT itself is another form of brainwashing, not a balance. It’s understandable that some would like to try and take back psychological power using the tactics of the oppressors, but it by lowering themselves to the level of those they are defining as their oppressors.
I have no problem with CRT being taught as a viewpoint among others. I believe what most are concerned about is the teaching of the tenants of CRT, whether specifically labelled as such, by those who have bought into it as ‘truth’.
If you substitute some words:
(3) Owing to what power theorists call “interest convergence” or “material determinism,” legal advances (or setbacks) for powerless people tend to serve the interests of dominant powerful people. Thus, the power hierarchy that characterizes American society may be unaffected or even reinforced by ostensible improvements in the legal status of oppressed or exploited people.
Regardless whether this makes sense or not, scientifically, the words “tend to” is the most problematic because it is too close to assuming guilt in the legal system instead of reviewing for each legal instance where oppression is taking place.
If you review a legal instance independently, then the instance is either oppressive or not oppressive. The bias that it “tends to be oppressive” has no legitimacy to be part of the thesis/principles of a theory.
A person could present those concepts as conclusions to a particular study, but presenting them as “tenets” is destroys the impartiality/scientific integrity of the theory. As long as it treats that as a tenet, the theory is not science by propaganda.
A science oriented statement would be like this:
(3) “Interest convergence” or “material determinism,” could lead to legal advances (or setbacks) for powerless people where they serve the interests of powerful groups. Thus, the power hierarchy that characterizes a society may be unaffected or even reinforced by ostensible improvements in the legal status of oppressed or exploited people.
What this statement means is that just because everyone is treated equally according to the law, the equally applied policies of the law can still be used to oppress the powerless by the powerful. Now, this is logically and realistically correct and worthy as an unbiases reminder for people to be vigilant.
“If I apply the law to everyone equally, then I must not be oppressing anyone” —> FALSE: The laws themselves could be oppressive even if you apply it equally. You (the society) needs to review the actual effects of the laws to tell whether it is oppressive. Equal application is not enough to protect people from being oppressed.
The CRT presents itself as propaganda but you could purify it to get the worthy logical content without propaganda. After purifying, it is no longer CRT. It is just logic.
Conservatives, and I would think a majority of Americans, don’t want their kids to be taught this is school.
It appears that this is some of the craaaap being taught as CRT. Some examples of critical race theory in schools:
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/some-examples-of-critical-race-theory-in-schools
The Critical Race Theory is craaap and Marxist propaganda and part of the Sovietization and Stalinization of America which is progressing since Department of Homeland Security (DHS is translation from KGB) was created and Patriot Act was enacted . This is a just a New Normal . It will get worse before it will get better . Equality and Inclusion . I know know this stuff from a different country and from different political system
I remember a time when I had comments deleted for posting links to the NY Post.
My how things have changed.
The critical race theory in USA is a 50 million plus people living on welfare and food stamps in ghettoes without a hope for better life and future killing each other. Most of them are black people and people of color. 50 million people is a lot of people . BLM did not come from nowhere . This is a similar situation as it was with poor Jews in Eastern Europe before WW II . Deplorable .
Nicholas Kristof’s -Krzysztofowicz knows well critical race theory . He is a good columnist . Travel a lot including Western Ukraine which was part of Poland before WW II . I exchanged with him a few words a few years back . Another race theory columnists is Anne Applebaum -Sikorska from ” the Atlantic ” but she is not good as Kristof and she is an American Marxist https://www.scribd.com/document/478058037/Anne-Applebaum-Sikorska
From Tom Elias today:
“The anti-Semitism evidenced in the Stanford complaint and the creation of the ethnic studies curriculum has not been so open. While creating the curriculum, for example, advocates of Critical Ethnic Studies quietly included Jews in stating that pale-skinned immigrant groups gave up all or most of their prior identities after arrival in America, eagerly accepting “white privilege.” That’s obviously false.
This pattern repeated at Stanford, the complaint charges, when a Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) program in the student counseling service “advanced anti-Semitic tropes concerning Jewish power, conspiracy and control and endorsed the narrative that Jews support white supremacy…”
In fact, Jews were leading supporters of civil rights in America long before the Freedom Riders of the 1960s.”