CRT is an academic concept and movement that is more than 40 years old. It's also an educational idea that race is a social construction, and racism is not the result of bias or prejudice, but part of legal practices, policies and systems. I had a chance to interview Stetson University faculty members Rajni Shankar-Brown, PhD, professor and Jessie Ball duPont endowed chair of social justice education, and Chris Ferguson, PhD, professor of psychology. They provided some different viewpoints on CRT as well as some food for thought.
Dr. Ferguson:
How does CRT fit into your work as a professor of psychology?
How does CRT fit into your work as a professor of psychology?
I've always been interested in how social narratives form and how these can influence science, politics, etc. Among the other things I've done, I've done work on violent crime and have become more interested in data on policing, race and crime. As is often the case, when an issue is highly charged emotionally, morally or politically, people often try to bend information to fit particularly worldviews and so I've become interested in how that's the case for CRT and it's place as a current fulcrum for culture war debates.
What contributes to some of the misconceptions about what CRT actually is?
CRT until recently was a fairly obscure legal theory that tended to focus on race as a dividing point, putting people into oppressor and oppressed groups. It tends to be opposed to traditional liberalism, hostile to free speech and due process and has an authoritarian leaning to it. There are a lot of adjacent ideas and it's not always clear if they are officially part of CRT or simply influenced by or associated with it...everything from Whiteness studies, to microaggressions, the idea of White privilege, the #1619 Project, White Fragility, and more distally, things like implicit biases. It has influenced some pop writings such as Robin DiAngelo's White Fragility and Ibram Kendi's antiracism, though its not clear such pop writings are "officially" CRT. So that creates a lot of confusion...a lot of things, some of them quite bad, are being done in schools but there's some "plausible deniability" that teachers can then claim those things aren't "really" CRT. That's kind of true, but also rather misleading, as they certainly are influenced by thoughts originating in CRT.
One thing that's misleading is that CRT is not merely teaching people about race, racism, slavery and Jim Crow. Nor are all objections to CRT related to disinclination to address those issues. CRT is not needed to teach those issues accurately. Indeed, one of the (valid I think) criticisms of CRT is that it is neither empirically nor historically accurate (as evidenced by criticisms of the 1619 Project by historians), and has a very divisive and Manichaean (good v evil) worldview.
The other misconception I'm seeing is that opposition to CRT is coming solely from the political right. There are, in fact, many of us on the left and center who worry CRT (and other identity focused approaches) are doing real harm both to individuals and our society. I think the right are obviously using it for political advantage (and I do think they've seized on a winner issue for them here), but it's not just a right-wing concern.
How do schools sometimes misrepresent what CRT is or use it in ways that are actually more divisive?
There have been numerous anecdotes where schools have shamed people, including kids, directly because of their race, or gender in ways that are pretty clearly harmful from a psychological perspective. Some schools have told kids that certain values such as working hard or rational thinking are "white" values, which is quite racist (but does come from some far-left views on culture). Some schools are trying to deemphasize grades, standardized testing, correct answers in math, etc., which may communicate to some minority kids they can't compete. Teachers have been threatened with their jobs for opposing CRT and many students (including in universities) worry their grades will suffer if they don't toe the party line (i.e. compelled speech). Some schools use racial "affinity groups" which look a lot like segregation. Concepts such as white privilege, white fragility, and such are pretty well known to cause resentment and backlash. Other concepts like implicit biases and microaggressions aren't well-founded empirically. But in general, focusing on race differences, race conflict, etc., tends to get people to see differences and our natural (probably evolved) tendency is to see differences as conflict. If we wish to improve race relations, getting people to identify more with their race, as opposed to shared humanity, just isn't the way to do it. That's not to say there are no disparities and we shouldn't work to address those. But the CRT approach is much more akin to a kind of quasi-religious revivalism based in shame and conflict, not an empirical and strategical approach founded in cooperation and unity.
How can teachers and parents sift through sometimes conflicting ideologies to make sure they are teaching the facts while also recognizing that different viewpoints can affect how those facts are both taught and understood?
We need to be careful of faddish and morally grandstanding theories whether they come from the left (CRT) or right (intelligent design, abstinence only). That's even if the potential harm to kids weren't a factor, which it is. The more something feels like there's a moral imperative to teach something as true and beyond question, the less fact-based that belief probably is, in reality. I see this when I ask people about CRT "Would you be okay if teachers mentioned CRT is a thing that exists without endorsing it, and present evidence both for it and against it?" The answer from both sides tends to be "no." CRT in education is really a stand-in for larger culture wars about what worldviews or narratives will be dominant. But now we're playing with kids' well-being in a way that is alarming and, frankly, rather selfish. To be clear, I don't support the various bills "banning" CRT, and I think many have very real free-speech concerns But I think using CRT in education is going to be real problem. We need more good data on this issue, but we shouldn't be engaging in a nation-wide experiment with such a divisive and potentially harmful teaching approach without that data.
Some people think of CRT as new, but can you explain a little bit about its origins?
Critical Race Theory (CRT) is an academic movement that stems from the 1970’s, growing out of Critical Legal Studies. It has many tenants including the fact that race is a social construction. It has been used to examine how institutional racism in connection to other oppressive forces manifests in access to quality education and discriminatory bank lending, and housing segregation, and also supported work around other critical areas such as intersectionality, bias, microaggressions. There are many wonderful scholars who have contributed to the development of CRT including Kimberle Crenshaw, Derrick Bell, Glora Ladson-Billings, Richard Delgado, Jean Stefancic, Patricia Williams, Tara Yoso, Alan Freeman, and more. Delgado and Stefancic define CRT as “a collection of activists and scholars interested in studying and transforming the relationship among race racism, and power.” As a social and environmental justice educator-scholar, CRT has been influential in my work for decades and continues to play a vital role in my efforts to address social inequalities and to build a more just society.
What are the goals of CRT?
CRT is an effort to advance equity and justice. The theory recognizes that racism is codified and embedded in our systems and structures, and woven into public policies, and perpetuates social inequalities. CRT encourages a critical examination of U.S. laws, policies, and practices as it intersects with issues of race and other identities including gender, sexuality, religion, and more. It asks us to identify barriers to achieving an inclusive society and world. In many ways this theory actually transcends racial and gender binaries, and it examines whole experiences of power, privilege, and oppression.
What are some common misconceptions and how can people learn more about what CRT is really about?
There is currently a lot of misunderstanding, misinterpretation, and misinformation on CRT including in political spaces, news, and social media. Like any approach, it can quickly be misunderstood and distorted -- and in many cases, I would argue that it is intentionally being disfigured as a fearmongering tactic and to uphold power dynamics. To see an academic theory that is rooted in inclusion suddenly causing turbulence demonstrates a lack of genuine understanding about CRT and efforts to distort it. I recommend that people learn about CRT by reading the work of CRT scholars, diverse voices like civil rights lawyer Derrick Bell, Kimberle Crenshaw, Patricia Williams, Glora Ladson-Billings, Tara Yoso and many more, instead of forming ideas from messaging delivered through media. A wonderful book to learn more about CRT is Critical Race Theory: An Introduction by Richard Delgado and Jean Stefancic. Our nation has visible and growing disparities. We have a social and moral responsibility to ask critical questions, examine systemic barriers and structural discrimination, and work together to build healthier, inclusive schools, communities, and world -- and CRT is a framework that encourages us to ask critical questions and confront oppressive systems in order to create a more just society.
How can CRT encourage dialogue, and why is it ok if sometimes that dialogue makes people uncomfortable?
We need to honor diverse stories and move towards a better future which values diversity and promotes genuine inclusion. “We the people” should be WE, as in all of us and not just segments of society. Having courageous dialogue and facing uncomfortable truths is imperative to advancing equity and justice. If we are to advance equity in our communities, schools, nation, and world, we must cultivate moral courage and ask critical questions. We must be willing to have uncomfortable, but necessary conversations. CRT encourages telling a fuller and more honest history, and building systems that promote “liberty, and justice for all” – a pledge that we ask millions of children to recite every morning in school.
How can CRT benefit everyone?
CRT benefits everyone by calling on us to create an inclusive world. We must disrupt in justice and false racial hierarchies. We must transform, reimagine, and reshape policies and practices that disenfranchise and oppress precious lives to instead empower. CRT is one pathway to do this; from my perspective, it is an indispensable theoretical lens that challenges historical and current inequalities and that supports us in transforming society to be more socially just. As Congressman John Lewis wisely reminded us, “Freedom is the continuous action we all must take, and each generation must do its part to create an even more fair, more just society.” CRT provides a framework to create a more fair, more just society -- and a better world for everyone. Seeing an inclusive framework and movement being distorted and attacked is distressing and revealing, and in many ways, it only further confirms the need for CRT.
No comments:
Post a Comment