Have You Heard of Critical Race Theory?

Thanks to a class in Critical Theory that was offered as part of my doctoral training in Organization Development (shout out to Stephen Brookfield!), I’m one of the few people who had more than a passing awareness of Critical Race Theory before it became a ideological cudgel for the far-right. In my critical theory class I learned that there is a family of critical studies in the social sciences that includes Critical Race Theory, or CRT as it is referred to, along with Critical History Studies, Critical Management Studies, Critical Pedagogy and others. And based upon what I know about it, the CRT that’s tossed around in the political rant-o-sphere has little to nothing to do with Critical Race Theory as it developed in the social sciences.

The first thing to know about Critical Race Theory when used in political rhetoric, is that “critical” is not being used in any of the ways we usually think of it. For instance, it does not mean to criticize, as in “to be critical of.” It also doesn’t mean crucial as in “of critical importance.” It also doesn’t mean potentially disastrous, as in “in critical condition.” Yet more commonly used definitions add a sense of ominous danger around CRT, which I believe is intended in the political rhetoric. The real meaning of “critical” in the context of CRT is something I’ll get to later.

The next thing I can tell you is that Critical Race Theory was developed not to be an political stance, but from asking questions that are based in social science – questions about our society and why it is the way it is. One of these questions is about the impact of civil rights legislation aimed at the protection of voting rights, fair housing, and equality in education in the US. Scholars are asking questions about why for decades after the enactment of legislation that was supposed to address racial disparities and social/economic inequities, these problems still persist. In other words, the proposed solutions are not solving the problems they were meant to solve. Why is that?

This is where the academic tradition of critical theorizing comes in. Critical theory aims to illuminate inequities, reveal exploitation of the many by the few, and (this next part is important) expose how these things can come to be accepted as normal. Although there is a certain activist quality in all critical theorizing, including Critical Race Theory, it is mostly in the sense that it dares to challenge the dominant theories in the social sciences rather than accept them as established ‘truths’.

Critical theorizing, as it is practiced in the higher reaches of academia, involves complex theorizing in the social sciences and in legal studies where it is used as a framework for discussion and analysis. Critical Race Theory, which comes from critical theorizing, is not put forth as a curriculum that can be “taught,” and especially not in K-12. It is also not synonymous with Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI).

This is the most misleading aspect of what is being said about Critical Race Theory, and the most dangerous. The politically-motivated rhetoric around Critical Race Theory and the challenges brought to local school boards about a CRT curriculum, are fabricated narratives using scary sounding words that are designed to create fear, preserve the status quo and perpetuate inequality. These are all things that Critical Race Theory is not.