Why Not Defend It?

Last month I did a post on Critical Race Theory, a "theory" which has come to be a flash point in schools around the country. CRT, which was originally a purely academic exercise, has in the popular mind become an umbrella term for a number of identity politics offshoots.

Defenders in the media deny that CRT is being taught in schools, which causes one to wonder how that's something these media folks could possibly know, but nevertheless the concern is not whether a topic labeled CRT appears in school curricula but whether the ideas that have spun off from CRT are being taught, officially or unofficially, in the classroom.

The ideas found in books written by people like Robin D'Angelo and Ibram X Kendi include the view that America is racist and oppressive to the core, that the idea of a "color blind" society must be rejected, that objective truth, standpoint neutrality, logical reasoning and fairness are all "white values" and as such are suspect.

They also include the belief that any disparity between whites, Asians and blacks is ipso facto proof of racism, that whites are by nature racist and that ideals such as freedom of speech and blind justice are means by which "white supremacists" keep minorities oppressed.

Further, anyone who benefits from the "structural racism" that pervades the institutions of society is a racist, even if inadvertently, and if you're not actively seeking to topple these racist structures and institutions, you're also a racist.

Folks like D'Angelo and Kendi argue that anyone who benefits from the norms, values and structures of society, regardless of the beneficiary's skin color. If you're black, and you integrate into the white status quo, then you're actually "white" regardless of how much melanin your body produces.

For more read the post at the link and watch the video, but the purpose of this post isn't to reiterate that earlier one, but rather to highlight a question posed by John Daniel Davidson at The Federalist.

Davidson asks, if progressives really believe all this, why are they denying that it's being taught when the evidence seems overwhelming that it is? Why are they acting as if they're embarrassed by these ideas and don't want people to know that they're being promoted in schools? If they really believe that these ideas have not infiltrated our schools why don't they say something like, "This stuff isn't being taught, but it certainly should be."

Instead, they respond to parents who object to what's being served up to their children by either denying that schools are teaching this stuff or insulting parents and others by suggesting that they're racists for objecting to having their children learn about slavery.

Here's Davidson:

By now, most Americans know that critical race theory is real and that it’s being taught widely in public schools. This isn’t a semantics debate. Students are being taught racial hierarchies, along with the idea that the United States was founded on white supremacy, and that the U.S. Constitution, our legal system, and American ideals like freedom and equality all work to perpetuate and sustain systemic racism.

There are mountains of evidence of this. The work of Christopher Rufo and others has exposed critical race theory’s many manifestations, not just in public schools but inside major corporations and even the U.S. military. Yet the left has refused to debate critical race theory on the merits.

Instead, the corporate press, Hollywood, and woke Twitter bluechecks keep insisting that it doesn’t even exist, it’s just a fantasy conjured up by racist Trumpers trying to scare white voters into electing Republicans.

Just look at the left’s response to the historic Republican sweep of Virginia on Tuesday. Glenn Younkin’s campaign, their theory goes, falsely claimed that critical race theory was being taught in Virginia public schools. Racist white Virginians, terrified at the idea their kids would have to learn the truth about slavery and racism in America, elected Youngkin, who is also a racist.

(That these same voters also made history by electing Winsome Sears, a black woman, as lieutenant governor, and Jason Miyares, an Hispanic man, as attorney general, is conveniently ignored in this narrative.)

Their key talking point is that critical race theory isn’t even taught in Virginia schools. Cable news talking heads like MSNBC’s Nicolle Wallace incessantly dropped it into her election-night commentary, saying critical race theory, “which isn’t real,” swung the suburbs 15 points to the “Trump insurrection-endorsed Republican.”

Julian Castro called it a “fantasy world.” Larry Sabato called it a “phony issue.” Joy Reid called it a “coded boogeyman.”

The claim that CRT isn't being taught is disingenuous. Just because the exact words "Critical Race Theory" don't appear in a syllabus it doesn't follow that the ideas aren't being purveyed by classroom teachers. Too many students have reported that their teachers are indeed attempting to inculcate these ideas to think that it's a "phony issue."

So why the denials? Do these people not want the public to know what's being taught because they realize that most Americans would find the ideas lumped under the rubric of CRT to be pernicious, corrosive and divisive? Davidson thinks so:

So here’s my question: why doesn’t the left just debate critical race theory on the merits? People like Joy Reid and Wajahat Ali clearly agree with its central tenets. They obviously think America was founded on white supremacy, and that racism pervades our civic life and public institutions.

Why not just come out and say, “You know what? Critical race theory should be taught in public schools, because it’s the best way to expose kids to the truth about America.”

Why pretend something that you fervently agree with doesn’t exist? Why play shell games about how to define critical race theory? Why not just take the broadest definition that all sides can agree to and go from there? Why not make the case for why we should base school curricula on it, why corporations should train their workforces in it, why it should be the legal basis for racial reparations and the mass redistribution of wealth?

If people are confused about what critical race theory is, why not explain what it really is? Why argue that its attendant ideas and policy prescriptions are correct and desirable, and make the case for why they will make America a better, more peaceful, and just society?

These are all good questions. Here's Davidson's answer:

Leftists won’t do that because they know that most Americans find the ideas at the heart of critical race theory repulsive, and rightly so.

This is also why the left never openly debates the merits of, say, mass illegal immigration, which they obviously support. Instead, they pretend to oppose it, or argue that the border isn’t really in crisis. Same with the Black Lives Matter riots last summer, the effects of pandemic lockdowns, the dangers of transgender ideology and bathroom policies.

Whatever the issue, they pretend the thing they support isn’t even real, then call their opponents racists and bigots for insisting that it is.

That tactic didn't work very well for them in Virginia last week. Perhaps they'll abandon it before next November, but if not it's not likely to work for them then either.