We, the custodians, of the news cycle, should be the first to state it: A dense academic theory dating back to the 1970s does not just appear in the news randomly.Another way to say that you have likely seen "critical race theory", in headlines, is that there is a reason. Legal scholars use critical race theory (CRT), an analytical framework, to study institutional and systemic racism. However, this is not the only way it's being used at its current prominence.Recent months have seen a number of Republican-sponsored bills in state legislatures that attempt to limit what educators can or cannot teach about "divisive" concepts. Many of these concepts concern race. Although the language may vary slightly, most of these bills seem to be driven by a growing fear of conservatives about "critical race theory," which Republican leaders use as a blanket term to describe any mentions of race or racism in academic or governmental settings.At least five states have passed laws to curb classroom discussions about what they call "critical race theory" to date. Conservative panic over critical race theory extends beyond national borders. The Australian Senate voted to remove critical race theory entirely from its national curriculum. The false notion that critical racism theory teaches students to be innately racist is a source of anger for Republican leaders in the United States. They should feel guilty.This current uproar has profound implications for how classrooms are taught, who wins future elections and wider culture wars. Here's what you need know about these three words that dominate headlines and tweets right now.What is critical race theory?It's not something that could be taught in a kindergarten classroom despite repeated calls to ban critical race theory from K-12 schools. Dr. Khiara bridges, a law professor at UC Berkeley, and author of Critical Race Theory A Primer, states that it isn't. She explains that critical race theory was a legal theory that developed in law schools in 1970s and 1980s. It was an answer to the apparent, and I would argue obvious, failures of the Civil Rights Act 1964.While major pieces of legislation meant to achieve racial equality were passed in the wake of the Civil Rights Movement, racial inequality was still rampant. A group of legal scholars including Derrick Bell and Kimberl Crenshaw (his student at the time) began to ask the question "Why?" Bridges explains that critical race theory was developed to answer this question. Critical race theory is a framework that focuses on the idea of racism being systemic and deeply rooted in the legal system.Consider an injustice such as the Flint Water Crisis. Bridges also points out in her book that some might argue that race is just a descriptor in discussing Flint. She argues that it cannot be used as a reason why Flint's victims were predominantly Black.However, a critical race theorist would examine the historical factors that caused the crisis to primarily affect Black people. Their studies would be based on the notion that racial inequalities are built into the foundational building blocks of society.SEE ALSO: What to know about systemic racismBridges points out the fact that the framework was able to "analyze multiple question around law and race inequality" and covers topics such as affirmative action and the criminal justice system. Dr. Keffrelyn BROW, a professor of cultural and educational studies at the University of Texas, Austin adds that critical race theory is an analytical framework. It has been used in many disciplinary areas, including education. It's a simple explanation framework for the past and current conditions of racism and race.It is important to focus a little on the word "theory" in order to fully understand the term. Critical race theory doesn't look like a scientific theory that can easily be proven by an experiment. (And answered with a correct or incorrect answer). Bridges says that it is closer to Foucault’s theory of power. This provides a framework for understanding "power" in different contexts, something kindergarteners don't always learn about. She says that these things are not falsifiable. It's a theory about how to understand and look at society.Bridges emphasizes that there are many disagreements among critical-race theorists. She says she focuses on "institutions structures and macro level processes" but not implicit bias. This "directs us into interrogating individuals" while overlooking "the structures under these individuals exist." Bridges says that theory is not without controversy, which makes it more valuable. "Whenever someone in good faith questions me about my scholarshipit makes it better."What is the history of critical race theory?Critical race theory has been confined to academia for decades. How did it suddenly make its way into school board meetings, Twitter and other news outlets? Why are people so upset about it?The short answer to this question is that timing and language matter. Bridges stated that she observed in Critical Race Theory: a Primer that the theory's title, 'critical race theory', might be "easily exploitable" due to its broad scope. She says that it is difficult to point to something and then say "there [critical-race theory] is."Kimberl Crenshaw was the one who coined this phrase. Bridges wonders "if in 40 years' hindsight she would have said something like, "critical legal studies of law", or just [built] law there, so that this theory could anchored to law."Even though the idea is rooted in legal studies, it is not being used right now by many conservatives. Critic race theorists Crenshaw and Bridges see the basis for the conservative backlash against critical race theory in 2020's Black Lives Matter protests. Many businesses, schools, as well as other organizations, offered anti-racist trainings and seminars, and a cultural shift seems to have occurred even in the most mundane of places.Bridges says that she woke up in May to find an email from her yoga studio, telling me they would do better when it comes to racial justice. "I ordered toilet paper from Amazon, and Amazon informed me that Black Lives Matter."Some analysts and scholars believe that this provided fertile ground to wage a culture war against those who seemed threatened by increased public awareness about anti-Blackness and white supremacy. Bridges states that Trump was trying to win November 2020, and that he used those protests to create something like Black Lives Matter against everyone else American against 'un-American' people; radicals against people who love this nation.Christopher Rufo, a conservative activist, was also criticizing anti-racist training modules. He incorrectly claimed that they advocated "segregationism", and "group-based guilt". He began using the term "critical racism theory" when discussing them on conservative news programs. This was after he read the footnotes to certain texts.Rufo was a co-author of a memo that Trump issued in September 2020. It prohibited federal agencies from training on topics related to "critical race theory" or "white privilege." (President Biden has since repealed the ban). Trump also criticized the 1619 Project, an effort of journalism from the New York Times to document the effects of chattel slavery in American history, strongly. Although a few historians have criticized aspects of the project's content, most people see it as an educational effort. Nikole Hannah Jones, its creator, was awarded a Pulitzer Prize. Trump made reference to the project in an attack on critical race theory.SEE ALSO: 1619 is an important date in American History for two reasonsIt seemed that conservatives had discovered a dreadful specter in critical race theory, even though the term was being used in a manner far removed from its academic meaning. Conservatives are particularly critical of critical race theory's notion of systemic racism. They claim that teaching critical theory in schools (more details in a second), amounts to teaching children that their country is "fundamentally, irredeemably racist" and that "every white man is a racist," as Senator Ted Cruz, a Texas Republican recently stated. Brown and Bridges both clarified that this definition of "critical racism theory" is not part of academic scholarship.Bridges points out that it will take years for scholars to truly grasp the whole picture of the current public discussion about critical race theory. This is especially true because we are in the middle a struggle over politicized terminology, which has yet to be fully resolved.There is evidence that the term "critical-race theory" was used to some extent by someone, at least the person who created the current flurry of usage. Rufo spoke out to the New Yorker about his use of "critical race theory." He said that "...cancel culture" is a vain term and doesn't translate into any political program. "Wake is a good epithet but it is too broad, too terminal, and too easy to ignore." Critic race theory is the ultimate villain. He tweeted that the goal was to get the public to read something absurd in the newspaper and instantly think of 'critical race theories'Others may not see the progression in this way, but they agree that critical race theory's misunderstood public image has important implications. Brown states that "there are many entry points one could use for talking about why we got to this place." Brown says increased awareness of racial violence like George Floyd's death led to "a lot more attention being paid to trying to understand racism, not just something that one person does, but as a systemic and structural problem."She continues, "It is not surprising that critic race theory has become a catch-all for any effort to understand diversity, inclusion and equity all the things we have made some progress in," she said. We've made some progress in addressing these issues in schools, but we still face resistance.Wait! Schools are going to stop teaching race because of the "critical race theory” bills.But not necessarily. The bills and the conservative uproar over critical race theory have serious implications for anyone concerned about the fates of lessons on systemic racism in schools.Both Brown and Bridges agree that there is virtually no chance that critical racism theory, which they understand as a graduate-level analysis framework, will be taught in any K-12 school in the country. However, the anti-CRT bills have not stopped attempts to make critical race theory a topic for parents, students, and school boards to discuss. (And recently, this debate has often turned into chaos at school board meetings.Brown states that she does not believe in, or have evidence, of any content standards or curriculum standards that require teachers to teach critical races theory. Brown explains that while some teachers may have a basic understanding of critical race theory, they don't teach critical race theory as a theoretical framework. It's possible for a teacher to have a background in critical race theory that could help them explain a lesson on "the historical role of racism" in a social studies course. Brown however maintains that she doesn't know of any K-12 schools that teach theoretical frameworks.The United States does not have a single national curriculum, but Common Core State Standards provides some common standards for English and math. However, the states and school districts have the power to set education standards, which is why anti-CRT bills have been introduced. This curriculum model has caused discrepancies in the types of historical lessons that are taught in the United States, as well as the language used in schools regarding the Civil War.Brown says, "This isn’t the first time there’s been debate and contention about curriculum." "In fact, I'd say that curriculum is one of many prime areas where political battles were waged, at minimum since the 1800s and certainly since the emergence K-12 public education with the understanding of students being viewed as potentially powerful."It is still unclear how the bills will affect classrooms. Legal scholars claim that many of these bills have a flawed legal standing and will face legal challenges due to the restrictions on free speech. The conservative opposition to teaching anything about racism is fundamentally a bigger attempt to hide the worst parts of our nation's history. Bridges and Brown recommend that anyone who wants to educate young people about power, inequality, and race should be vigilant about what they are teaching.Brown states that at least one of bills' aims is to cause enough fear and confusion on the part parents and educators to make it difficult for them to not do the work. "So, if the work is not done, then you have achieved the goal of not actually addressing race."What can you do to ensure that lessons on race and racism are taught in your school?First, tell it. This means being present at school board meetings, sending letters and emails to education officials and/or reaching to your congressperson. Bridges states that it is important to inform your school districts that you do not want your children to learn racism. But, more importantly, they need to talk about diversity and equity. She adds, "I don’t know what the long-term impact of these efforts will be." It's not the first instance that diversity and multiculturalism have been challenged in school curricula. It won't be the first time it happens, and it is unlikely that it will disappear. It will bring about a dialogue, however. We must all stand up for the relevance and importance of teaching students about race.Bridges is hopeful that we can get away from the "ridiculous” notion that "critical racism in K-12 schools means everyone is going to learn that every white person is a racist", and instead, we could "enter into a dialog as a nation over how K-12 schools should incorporate concepts like systemic racism like structural racism like intersectionality."She continues, "That's an even more productive conversation than letting critical race theory out K-12 schools." Let's have democratic conversations about what kids should be learning and how. This would be far more productive and American than banning all ideas.
