top of page
Search
Writer's pictureNoël Ingram
Jul 31, 20217 min read

What is Critical Race Theory and Why Are People So Upset About It?

Also, what does it have to do with gender?


Described as “anti-American” and the focus of multiple pieces of legislation which seek to ban its inclusion in public school curriculum or workplaces (see below for a detailed list of past and previous legislation), Critical Race Theory (CRT) is having a moment. What, exactly, is Critical Race Theory? Why are people so upset about it, and what does it have to do with gender?



What is Critical Race Theory?


Critical Race Theory comes from legal scholarship. In 1991, Kimberlé Crenshaw published an article in the Stanford Law Review, “Mapping the Margins: Intersectionality, Identity Politics, and Violence against Women of Color” that is considered one of the founding texts of Critical Race Theory. In this article, Crenshaw builds on a previous article where she introduced the concept of intersectionality:


In an earlier article, I used the concept of intersectionality to denote the various ways in which race and gender interact to shape the multiple dimensions of Black women’s employment experiences…I build on those observations here by exploring the various ways in which race and gender intersect in shaping structural, political, and representational aspects of violence against women of color.

In “Mapping the Margins,” Crenshaw talks about how both the contemporary feminist movement and antiracist organizing have often failed to meet the needs of Black women. She argues that the intersection of racism and patriarchy that women of color experience means that their experience of racism is different form that experienced by Black men, and their experience of sexism is different from that experienced by white women. Black women’s identity is shaped by their experience of BOTH race and gender in a way that cannot be explained by looking at each identity separately. Crenshaw’s argument builds on a tradition of legal scholarship called Critical Legal Studies, which argues that the law is not neutral.


Crenshaw’s argument is shaped by what was happening around her at the time she wrote the article. During the early 1990s, there was a trend in antiracist work that focused on the individual actions of people, rather than looking at the structural forces that sustain racism. For example, an antiracist policy that focuses on individual actions might encourage you to be nice to everyone, regardless of their race. Any change is thus located in an individual’s behavior towards another person. A structural policy says that it’s not the actions of individual people that we should be targeting for change. Rather, there are structures that make racism continue to exist, regardless of the intentions of individual people involved. As an example, we can think about accessibility of a building for people who are physically disabled.



A Thought Experiment

Photo by kyo azuma on Unsplash


Imagine that there was a person who wanted to build a school building. However, this person is prejudiced against people with disabilities and does not want any disabled students to go to this school. Therefore, when designing the building, this person intentionally made the building so that it was not accessible for people with physical disabilities— there were no wheelchair ramps, stairs existed instead of elevators, the hallways of the school were narrow so that moving around in a wheelchair would be difficult, and there were no bathroom stalls large enough or fitted with grab bars. The building that was then built was extremely inaccessible to people with physical disabilities. Years later, the person who was in charge of designing and building this building died. Different people were in charge of the school who were not prejudiced against people with disabilities— in fact, they were committed to building a welcoming and inclusive school for all students. However, the school still existed in the original building. The individual people in this new school have great intentions, but the structure of the building still discrimiinates against students with physical disabilities. To make the school welcoming to students who have physical disabilities requires the individal teachers to recognize the structural features of the building that are preventing students with physcial disabilities from accessing the building and then put in a lot of work (hire contractors, redesign significant parts of the building) in order for that building to actually be a welcoming space for all students.


Critical Race Theory makes a similar argument, but instead of a building, one of the structures that CRT highlights is the law. In the same way that this imaginary building was created by someone who no longer is alive, yet continues to influence students’ ability to access education within in today, the United States legal system has been shaped by laws that were originally written with racist intentions and continue to exist and influence people’s lives today.



Is This a New Idea?


Nope. Critical Race Theory is not a new idea. It’s existed in what is called “the academy” (meaning that scholars at universities have been doing research using this theory) for decades, influencing research outside of law schools, particularly in the social sciences and humanities.


The ideas that make up Critical Race Theory have a much longer history, particularly if we look at the tradition of Black American feminism. For example, in the “Combahee River Collective Statement,” published in 1977, the members of the collective state:

The most general statement of our politics at the present time would be that we are actively committed to struggling against racial, sexual, heterosexual, and class oppression, and see as our particular task the development of integrated analysis and practice based upon the fact that the major systems of oppression are interlocking. The synthesis of these oppressions creates the conditions of our lives. (emphasis mine)

We can also look at Sojourner Truth’s speech at the 1851 Women’s Convention in Akron, Ohio, “Ain’t I a Woman?” as an additional example of an analysis about the way that sexism and racism interact to produce oppression that is categorically different than that produced by sexism or racism on their own.



So, Why are We Hearing About It Now?

Photo by Ethan Wong on Unsplash


Former President Trump, prominent conservative organization, The Heritage Foundation, and many Republican legislators (see list below for more information) are pointing to CRT as connected to a variety of issues that they believe are unraveling the social fabric and eroding American values, such as 2020 BLM protests, diversity training, LGBTQ clubs on school campuses, California’s ethnic studies model curriculum, and alternative disciplinary measures like restorative justice on school campuses.


However, all this discussion about CRT by prominent conservative politicians is part of a rhetorical strategy called the “straw man fallacy” as part of what is called “dog-whistle politics.” Ian Haney-López, the John H. Boalt Professor of Law at the University of California at Berkely, leading scholar of CRT, and author of the book, Dog Whistle Politics: How Coded Racial Appeals Have Reinvented Racism and Wrecked the Middle Class explains:

That is what we call dog whistle politics. That's what you see in New Hampshire right now. Not a legitimate engagement with a studied, a careful and honest engagement with critical race theory, but an effort to turn critical race theory into yet another racial boogeyman.

The multiple bills banning CRT and many right-wing opponents of CRT are not actually talking about CRT as it exists, but instead are creating a “straw man”-- a version of CRT that they can point to as a threat. And the version of CRT that they create works as “dog whistle politics” because it allows these politicians to further racist policies and talking points while not using explicitly racist language.



What does this have to do with gender?


To answer this question, we need to circle back to Crenshaw’s concept that we talked about earlier, intersectionality— the idea that the identity categories of race and gender interact in complex ways that are influence the lived experience of real people. If we work to further gender equality without recognizing or addressing the ways that race influences the lived experiences of women, then we’re not only erasing the varied experiences of gender oppression, but we’re actually continuing to uphold racist structures. While Crenshaw’s work focuses on the experience of Black women in America, there are many other scholars who have argued for the importance of an intersectional approach across the world. One prominent article that looks at the way that Western feminists often inadvertently oppress non-Western women is Chandra Talpade Mohanty’s 1984 article, “Under Western Eyes: Feminist Scholarship and Colonial Discourses.”



Why Should I Care?


The anti-CRT rhetoric has already resulted in numerous pieces of legislation that influence what schools can and cannot teach (see below). While the language from bill to bill is different, the overarching connection between them all is the way that they censor what is and is not permissible to speak about in school. Such legislation takes aim at the idea that our embodiment, or the way that our bodies are read by others in the world, is a significant category of analysis. It seeks to prevent dialogue about the way that our differences influence our lives and how different categories of identity are connected to systems of power. Teachers working in districts where such legislation has been passed will likely shy away from lessons that prompt their students to engage in thinking deeply about their identities and the way that those identities influence the way that they experience the world. While the legislation primarly targets race as a cateogory of identity, the fuzzy language of many pieces of legislation means that many schools will likely discourage or outright ban conversations about other identity categories that shape their students’ lives, including gender, sexuality, class, ability, and others. Students in these classrooms will graduate with an impoverished understanding of themselves, the world around them, and the histories that continue to shape present possibilities.




A List of Legislative Action Taken by State in Response to Critical Race Theory as of July 31, 2021


118 views0 comments

Recent Posts

See All

Comments

Mascot1.png
Mascot_TeachingPose_edited.png
bottom of page