By Ramneet Singh
NEW YORK, NY – Last Friday’s ACLU “At Liberty” podcast, Kimberlé Crenshaw discussed the definition and context of Critical Race Theory against recent misinformation; she advocated for a deeper historical understanding to counteract efforts to undermine American democracy.
As background, host Molly Kaplan and the accompanying article stated that “27 state legislatures and 165 national and local organizations have made efforts to restrict education on racism” at the time. These efforts are against Critical Race Theory, which dates back to the 1970s and 1980s, she said.
Kaplan is joined by Crenshaw. According to the article, Ines Santos mentioned that Crenshaw is a “…pioneering CRT scholar and Distinguished professor of law at Columbia University and UCLA…” Kaplan also credits 
Crenshaw on her work of intersectionality, a topic of the podcast.
Kaplan opened by referencing the relevance of Critical Race Theory in higher education as opposed to K-12, the battleground of this conflict.
From questioning, Crenshaw discussed what Critical Race Theory is not. Crenshaw described the “misinformation campaign,” as successful as “…it casts a gaze upon us from a hostile, misinformed, intentionally divisive focus and then asks us to explain ourselves.”
Crenshaw denied that the theory is connected to the “defamatory framing that the right-wing has utilized to create this hysteria.” She remarked that a subset of the population has instilled “a whole range of racial grievances, discomforts, anxieties.” She urged people to “consider the source.”
She moved to define it. It is a method of “seeing, recognizing, and understanding how racial inequality has been created and how it’s continuously reproduced.” As an example, she focused on “current patterns of wealth disparity” and how “African Americans have less than a quarter of the median net wealth that white families do.”
Through learning history and structural inequality, she purported the connection of the “federal housing authority (and) creating white wealth” in the 1930s and 1940s. She noted that later wealth accumulation through real estate has widened the present wealth gap. Without this, people may make misinformed assumptions.
She argued that students learning about these issues is essential to being “informed citizens,” despite the discomfort of the topic. “You can’t be a more perfect union if you never learned what its imperfections were.”
Regarding its origins, Crenshaw stated she was part of the “post-Civil Rights generation” and their goal was to advance civil rights further. At Harvard Law School, she noted there was a lack of integration of the “implications of the transformative revolution in law that had occurred after Brown v. Board of Education.”
The objective “was to learn what we needed to learn about the relationship between law and racial liberation, which meant we had to know about the relationship of law to racial subordination.” There was an intellectual network centered around critical thinking of the nation’s history.
Kaplan stated that Crenshaw was counteracting the perception of the neutrality of law, as it was imbued with biases. Crenshaw expanded upon this with the “accepting the status quo as just the way it has to be.”
The idea was to halt this line of thinking of the “status quo was…racially benign.” and cultivate an understanding that considered the legacy of segregation. She noted that advancements from Critical Race Theory in law have extended itself with critical questioning in different areas.
Moving to contemporary issues, Crenshaw discussed the critical thinking surrounding George Floyd and how his death related to how “Chauvin was in an institution that has traditionally been allowed to surveil and punish African Americans going all the way back to the slave patrols.”
Crenshaw noted that the right-wing response to this level of questioning is “frightening;” they challenge the intellectual framework as the answers would force them to consider systemic issues.
Crenshaw brought up the contradiction of proponents of anti-CRT measures and how they are also “complaining about wokeness, who are saying that they’re being silenced.”
Kaplan and Crenshaw discussed the measure of teachers using body cameras, while those people do not advocate for body cameras on police officers.
Crenshaw noted the importance of self-criticism within a democracy. She stated they are “trying to distract people and confuse people by pointing to the racial others,” while they disrupt our democracy.
Kaplan noted the timing of the backlash, after the summer protests and the reaction to George Floyd and Breanna Taylor’s deaths.
As a pattern, Crenshaw referenced the era of Reconstruction and the backlash against the promotion of equal rights for freed African Americans, with some believing that it was “reverse discrimination.” With its extension into law, she described current reactions as a “deepening cycle…that has to be stopped.”
Discussing morality, Crenshaw described how the Civil Rights Movement “sought to lift up the moral imperative of a society that is true to its claims.”
Crenshaw cited the usage of Martin Luther King Jr. from right-wing proponents and even the Supreme Court along the lines of “to get beyond race, you have to stop talking about race.” She noted that King understood that a society that pushed legislation against a racial group, cannot think itself as being neutral when there is no institutional change.
Promoted by Kaplan, Crenshaw noted that “they were looking for a way to galvanize the anxieties and the grievances that were relatively muted during the summer of the great reckoning.” They imbued existing ideas into a specific framework.
With Kaplan bringing up intersectionality, Crenshaw remarked that “they have taken every issue that disrupts the satisfaction and comfort of white, Christian, male, cis, straight America” and mobilized people around that.
From questioning, Crenshaw referenced the “defenders of segregation used to denounce the freedom riders as divisive.” She elaborated that “they would point to the violence of the Ku Klux Klan…as evidence of the violence that’s caused by integration, not the violence that’s caused by segregation.”
Crenshaw purported that “what discomforts they are comfortable with are the inferences that you gather when you don’t know our racial history.”
Going back to wealth disparities and “blaming people of color”, she stated “the discomfort that that causes is perfectly ok because that’s a discomfort that is consistent with and reproduced within a society that is frankly a post-slavery and post-genocidal society.” She determined that learning about these issues will help us find solutions.
Crenshaw stated, “I think we are the true Americans because we believe in the project….they’re willing to cover up what the sins are because they don’t think we have the capacity to do the right thing.”
Crenshaw noted that ignoring problems does not make them disappear. The concept of engaging with the idea of systemic racism is in itself racist is “ridiculous.”
Concluding, Crenshaw stated that the prevalence of Critical Race Theory could be perceived as a partial success.
She preached “caution” and the potential strength of backlash. She stated that “we need to yell and scream and protest, and vote in greater numbers and at higher registers than those who are trying to defeat our democracy.”
We can take our pets to boarding facilities where we can watch them on camera, we can set up cameras to watch babysitters, why not have cameras on teachers so we can watch and see that our children are being taught well and not being abused or brainwashed? After all, our children are a very precious commodity, why not protect them?
Why would CRT proponents be against cameras if the program is on the up and up? They should welcome cameras.
Actually, am glad CRT is obsolete… who wants cathode rays shot towards you! It’s been ~ 20 years since we’ve had a CRT in the house…
Seriously, CRT (as now used) is still “squishy” as to its meaning and implications… this article did not do much (but helped a bit) to clarify… one point (of several) I don’t get…
Factually, historically, true, but very unclear how that could/should “be reversed”… and I realize that , yes, ‘continually being reproduced’ is a real concern, particularly in some areas, but again, I’m seeing no concrete proposals for the cessation of that. Then the next step would be ‘reparations’, am guessing…
Not weighing in on the specific issue. But will say, having watched a lot of body cameras over the years, the angle is hard to see much, it’s often in too tight and the movement makes it difficult. If you wanted cameras for teachers (again hypothetical), I would say stationary cameras on the ceiling make more sense.
That would work. Why are CRT supporters against cameras?
Perhaps because they feel that infringes on their right to ‘free speech’? [tongue firmly in the oral cheek]
I think most people are generally against cameras unless there is a compelling need.
Then, perhaps just audio?
I’m sure that parents will feel there is a compelling need to know what their children are being taught in school especially at this time when we have groups that are pushing agendas.
If you want to know what your kids are being taught, ask them.
I can say as I parent, I would not place my kind into a school with video cameras.
Thinking back to when I was a kid, I’m not sure I’d be able to accurately tell me parents everything that went on in school.
If I did, they might advocate for it to be shut down.
Kids are not mature enough to handle “critical race theory”, without it becoming “get whitey”. We’ve seen this, before – it is not new.
Even some adults aren’t discerning enough to handle it.
Young children don’t have the ability to realize when they’re being manipulated or brainwashed.
Why are having cameras problematic? We have cameras to watch our pets, why not our kids?
Why are having cameras problematic? I like a minimal level of surveillance in my life and not particularly concerned that some evil teacher is going to brainwash my kids. You’ve turned me from slightly opposed, to strongly and adamently opposed.
I believe there’s already videos on the Internet, in which some teachers (willingly) post messages that should cause concern for anyone.
What have I said here that turned you? I think you were of that opinion from the beginning. What if you had some right winger teaching 6 year olds? Wouldn’t you want to know what was being taught in their class?
[Moderator: this is your fifth and final comment on this thread for today.]
This: “Young children don’t have the ability to realize when they’re being manipulated or brainwashed.”
You want this to be a tool for parents to use against teachers and schools that are teaching things they don’t want. That’s a very dangerous idea – that cuts both ways on the political spectrum.
Cameras are needed in/around schools to deter and record crime, especially middle-high schools.
Not to mention to record periodic school shootings, etc. (By the way, I guess that the lack of those recently is one “benefit” of the school shutdowns.)
Without even getting into what is being taught.
I’m all for cameras – everywhere. But anyone looking at me is going to be pretty bored. Maybe they’ll use it for laughs.
(Hopefully, they don’t feel that way about what I say, as well.) 🙂
But that’s not what Keith is suggesting.
He wrote: “Young children don’t have the ability to realize when they’re being manipulated or brainwashed.”
RE: Body cameras worn by teachers
Body cameras on teachers don’t make much sense. It gives you a view of the students in the classroom. There might be potential FERPA (Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act) issues/violations involved in releasing camera footage that allows one to identify individual underage students in a classroom from school records.
Because racist parents would see what is going on in the classroom and shut it down 😐 We can’t have that 😐
It cuts both ways right. In some districts you could see parents up in arms because the curriculum is not “woke” enough (god I hate that word) and in some districts because it is too “woke” or as Keith put it – children are “being manipulated or brainwashed.” Nothing worse than a camera on teachers watching every word. EITHER WAY MIND YOU.
I suspect that the vast majority of parents would not be watching every word that was said. If they had that much time, they’d be teaching their own kids in the first place.
The only ones who would be so intensely focused on it are the ones that already have an agenda. And may already be causing problems (or “challenges”, depending upon how one looks at that).
Or, if a teacher (and/or the system itself) has an agenda.
If you look at the issue beyond Davis/California (in vast areas of the country), the division regarding this issue is painfully obvious.
You only need one, Ron.
Depends on whether they’re listened to, or not.
I’m always surprised at the level of “politics” (and outright nonsense) surrounding school boards and meetings.
Ultimately, that includes (both) the members of the school board that were forced to resign (for joking between themselves, about parents needing “babysitters”), and even that one school board member in San Francisco who said things that are a logical extension of “white privilege” type of arguments.
None of those things warrant the level of attention that they received. Especially the board that was joking about parents needing babysitters. (Really? That got them into that much trouble and media attention?)
(Ultimately, the San Francisco incident is connected to a more significant concern, regarding doing-away with merit-based enrollments.)
Oh, and it also includes the local school board member who was essentially recalled due to her undesirable skin color.
It’s almost as if the entire system was an example of an extremely-dysfunctional city council.
I believe I’m at least at 5 comments on here, as well.
In my experience, I have seen enough of these kind of cases become big headaches for all involved. As such I see the harm of cameras far outweighing any benefit.
What kind of cases? So far cameras have not been allowed unless the students themselves filmed teachers trying to push their political agendas on students or other such things.
It’s funny though that you are a big proponent for cameras on cops but then are against them when it comes to the protection of our most vulnerable, our children.
And very young children don’t even realize when they’re being manipulated. I feel cameras, or at least audio in classrooms are a great way to protect our children.
Not talking about cameras, I’m talking about people complaining about things that get taught or some kids uses a phone to video. I don’t see this as a solution to a problem, I see it as a solution that will cause much bigger problems when the focus should be on marshaling resources for education not bringing the culture wars to light.
Probably depends on whether or not one thinks that resources are marshalled to launch a culture war in the classroom.
Maybe the classroom isn’t the best place to focus so much on “culture”. Maybe they should teach actual subjects such as reading and math. (That alone is challenging-enough.)
I do not believe your example is correct, that concern would be launched from “both sides”. It’s only the side that’s concerned about “indoctrination”. And there’s a reason for that – the school system is being charged with “indoctrinating”, not vice-versa.
Seriously Ron. Do you really see a glaring need to put cameras into a classroom to monitor against teacher brainwashing of kids (Keith’s actual words)?
Honestly, I don’t know. However, I have seen videos of teachers that I’d be concerned about (and not just with this issue), but I’d also be concerned about the curriculum, itself.
I suspect that unless a problem arose, no one would even look at the videos. And if someone did constantly monitor videos, they’d be asked “why”.
Can kids take cellphones into classrooms (and film teachers)? (I guess they’re not “frisked”, at least.)
What’s wrong with audio David? I think it would be a great way to keep tabs on teacher competency and what’s actually being taught in the classrooms. Then there’s a record of it, and as you say with police cameras, it could be used for the teacher’s benefit to show that they were teaching properly.
You don’t need body cameras on teachers beyond the early elementary years if at all. After about 4th grade when the students start getting cell phones they can record anything they find offensive.
There is a lot of information in this article. Thank you to Ramnet Singh fr writing it.
two things really jumped out at me. First was the following quote, “You can’t be a more perfect union if you never learned what its imperfections were.”
Second was the power of labels. By giving CRT a label it made it easy to have superficial back and forth rants … highly polarized rants … rather than mor in depth discussion of the content and concepts of the subject.
Well said
Democracy by choice allows each school to decide whether they require classroom(s) to be recorded, and for parents/students to choose a classroom/school that has recording.
Not necessarily. It allows a governing board to make a determination but that determination must fall within state and federal laws as well as constitutional guidelines.
I am just explaining what democracy by choice means.
It is the next generation understanding of democracy recognizing areas where majority rule is unnecessary and causes conflicts.
If the constitution is not compatible, it is the constitution that is outdated.
Remote learning satisfies “recording” because the purpose of recording is for a parent to observe the teaching. The only missing component is if a parent does not like the teaching what they could do.
Policies like school choice let the parents choose different schools.
What I was talking about is letting the same school have classrooms that are recorded for whoever (teacher or student) that wants to be there. That could be the same classroom designated for remote learning.
I agree with that. I mean, how could one deny that? That’s the facts, Jack (or Jill). I can think of a few other countries that fit the same bill (just a few).
And some of them are not run by white people #gasp!#.
Oh now there’s some fine advice.
This is quite purposeful, and I believe a shˆtty strategy to make progress.
“especially at this time when we have groups that are pushing agendas.”
Both public and private schools have always had groups “pushing agendas”. In the ’50s and ’60’s when I was in public school, we said the pledge of allegiance daily. That could be considered a patriotic agenda.
We were taught that the United States was the greatest nation on earth. What we were not provided with were any statistics on the relative rankings of different nations on such criteria as economic opportunity, social mobility, health care outcomes, environmental health, egalitarian judicial systems, incarceration rates or even life expectancy. It was just assumed that wealth accumulation and military might made us #1. This assumption was a blatant agenda.
Net migration is a way to compare hospitality. In 2020:
USA: 945k net immigrants
China: -358k net emigrants
The actual score is lower for a country that restricts information, emigration, or people are just too poor to emigrate.
I agree with TW’s comment 100%.
[edited]
The pledge of allegiance thingy goes back farther than the 50’s/60’s… it was ‘tail-gunner’ Joe McCarthy who got the “under God” added. That was wrong!
(will doxx him [he’s long passed, who cares?])… look at his history, [wikipedia will suffice… he was not a ‘role model’]!)… the pledge of allegiance was so ‘rote’ it was perfunctory… doubt it actually ‘indoctrinated’ anyone… just a useless, perfunctory exercise… certainly not me, even tho’ I grew up in the 50’s/60’s… didn’t bother me, didn’t inspire me… just something we were expected to do. Like ‘roll call’…
I say this, very much respecting the nation, its flag, and all those who have served under it… yet my spiritual roots (going back to the OT), strongly suggest to me “do not make, nor worship ‘graven images’…”. So, I never pledged “allegiance” to the flag… but, I was sworn/affirmed in, multiple times, to preserve, protect and defend the US and State Constitutions… have/had no problems with that…
I found it very honorable that my Dad, both grandfathers, father in-law, uncles and an aunt had flags involved in their passing/funerals/interments… I respect the flag, but my allegiance is not there… it is for “the republic for which it stands”… to stand for it when it is in the right (morally, not politically), and to try to correct it if it leans wrong (morally).
David and Keith O…
You both may want to “chill” re: cameras and/or audio in classrooms… teachers unions would never permit them… might disclose incompetency even more that what you folk are expressing concern over…
That too, good point.
I’m sure they would be against them but police unions were against cameras on cops at one time too.
As you suggested, I think audio is the way to go here.