What is Critical Race Theory? (CRT)
CRT is a framework for analyzing the role of race and racism in society. With roots in the field of law, CRT posits that racial discrimination is embedded in schools, housing, and other aspects of everyday life. CRT offers a lens to examine structures and institutions, going beyond individual acts of bigotry often associated with the term ‘racism.’
What’s an example of systemic racism?
For example, after WWII, the Federal Housing
Administration backed loans to ease the path to homeownership. But racial
discrimination was baked into the policy; 98% of loans went to white people,
fueling “white flight” to suburbs and disinvestment in previously-thriving
urban cores that were “redlined” on maps as “slums.” Though such practices are
now technically illegal, people of color still face well-documented barriers to
safe and affordable housing. And, with home equity a key inheritance asset, the
FHA policies directly created today’s wealth gap.
How many states mandate CRT in the curriculum?
None. “Critical race theory” is not in any
mandated state standards, including Common Core. That said, a growing number of
educators are integrating books and curriculum that reflect human diversity and
address systemic racism in honest, age-appropriate ways. This builds on decades
of reform efforts to reckon with white-washed history, monocultural book
shelves, and persistent discriminatory practices. Thus, while the phrase
“Critical Race Theory” may not be in the curriculum, robust anti-racism efforts
utilize a critical race lens to uncover and disrupt discriminatory practices.
When racism is understood as individual acts of
bigotry or discrimination, we can excuse ourselves from the problem as long as
we don’t say the ugly things. But we can’t excuse ourselves from racist
systems--and that calls us all to reckon with the problem and examine
the systems we all participate in, whether we know it or not. Returning to our
housing example, white people benefitted from the racist policies, even if they
weren’t aware of it and/or didn’t engage in individual racist acts. Tackling
racism thus involves everyone. By casting this as “woke” or “indoctrinating,”
critics can divert attention from unequal systems, all while asserting
“colorblindness” or “we’re all just people” (both problematic, but that’s for
another time).
What are specific criticisms of a critical race lens?
Critics claim this perspective is dividing school kids by race. But the educational system by design creates and maintains racial disparities in multiple ways, including unequal access to high-level courses, disproportionate suspensions, inequitable funding, and segregation within and across districts. Since a critical race lens by definition aims to dismantle these divisions, accusations of “divisiveness” are disingenuous at best.
Another argument is that teaching about race is teaching kids to “hate America.” Hardly. A more complete, honest view of history encompasses harms of the past and progress made through our democratic institutions. With a critical lens, we lay bare where we went wrong, analyze how to make change, and commit to co-creating a society that fulfills the promise of equal opportunity enshrined in the Constitution. That makes challenging racism an act of citizenship, not indoctrination. As I tell my students (future teachers), a critical race perspective is not teaching kids to hate America, it’s teaching them to love--and practice--democracy.
.jpg)
Perhaps the strongest argument comes under the
banner of “parental rights” and transparency in what their kids are exposed to.
Clearly, parents are essential stakeholders in education; no one is questioning
their rights. The debate lies in the limits of those rights, and at whose
expense. Moreover, the right to weigh in on any public issue carries the
responsibility to be informed, undercutting the credibility of CRT critics who
can’t even define the concept. Finally, rights for one parent do not include
the ability to undermine rights of other parents.
Decisions about what, when, why, and how to teach are the foundation of educational practice. But the CRT conversation is not a reasoned debate about these perennial questions. The firestorm, often presented as a grassroots movement, is actually an act of arson. The culprit? Christopher Ruffo, a political operative who seized the term and transformed it into a rage-inducing rally cry. Having effectively agitated the culture wars, CRT has emerged as an all-purpose condemnation of anything related to diversity, including gender. Riding that wave, anti-CRT crusaders have spread trumped-up accusations that teachers and librarians defending LBTQIA+ kids and content are pedophiles out to “groom” and sexualize children.
To be fair, I’ve seen ham-fisted resources about
race and gender --books or curricula that lack scaffolding, are didactic, or
talk down to kids. Parents, educators, and authors should all aim for
thoughtful, meaningful, and age-appropriate content. That makes quality content
creation for kids so essential. But this is exactly what is under attack.
What are the threats to creators, authors, and educators who value diversity and anti-racism?
The misinformation and hysteria over CRT has sparked a flurry of legislation that muzzles, bans, or even criminalizes access to diversity-related books and classroom resources. Intentionally vague, many laws offer few clear lines to guide different instructional contexts. Is it okay to have books that represent students’ identities, even if the book isn’t about that identity? Can race be addressed when it’s central to historical understanding of say, the Civil War? These are the tricky waters educators, authors, and librarians must now navigate.
The world of children’s literature has joined hands with partners around the world to protect the right to read. Here are a few key efforts:
- SCBWI is a member of the National
Coalition Against Censorship (NCAC) and its working group, the Free
Expression Network (FEN), an “alliance of organizations dedicated to
protecting the First Amendment . . . and opposing governmental
efforts to suppress constitutionally protected speech.”
- We Need Diverse Books is a nonprofit
organization that aims to “create a world
in which all children can see themselves in the pages of a book.” Among
its programs, the organization “provide[s] books to classrooms
nationwide.”
- PEN
America, an international organization, offers a number of
resources, including this overview of book banning in the US
- Resources for educators are available from the National Coalition Against Censorship and the American Library Association.
As the cornerstone of democracy, schools should prepare students as thriving members of our democratic, multicultural society. That means today’s children must co-create a future where everyone has access and opportunities to fulfill their potential. By presenting stories and information where all children are included and valued, children’s literature equips youth to not only appreciate differences, but to identify and dismantle barriers based on these differences.
Additional resources:
- Education Week landing page for Critical Race Theory
- Map: Where Critical Race Theory Is
Under Attack
- Four Things Schools Won't Be Able
to Do Under 'Critical Race Theory' Laws
- My own landing page of social justice blogs offering additional insights and teaching strategies
