What we talk about when we talk about "critical race theory," Conclusion: Education, and why we are talking about this in the first place

 Let's wrap up this long and winding series.  Why are we even discussing "critical race theory?"

According to the left-wing talking points, it goes like this.  At some point within the last year or so, a handful of right-wing demagogs decided that they didn't want the real, full history of America being taught in our schools.  But how would they stop it?  Here's what they did, sneaky bugger(er)s that they are.  They went digging around in law reviews, because that's obviously what you'd do here, right?  They came across this thing called "critical race theory," from authors like Derrick Bell, and Kimberle Crenshaw, and while these articles are not being assigned in K-12, they decided to turn this thing called "critical race theory" into a boogeyman to stop the teaching of true history in K-12.  Of course!  It's so simple!

To quote Homer Simpson, wait.  No, it's not.  It's needlessly complicated.

That's because it isn't what happened.  This should be clear by now.  So why are we having a public yelling match about this thing called "critical race theory," when a) our K-12 schools are not assigning Bell, Crenshaw or any of that crowd, and b) most of the yelling heads haven't read any of this stuff anyway?

It really does have to do with schools, even though the original source material is not being assigned in K-12.  Why?  Because the Education programs, which train teachers, are assigning this stuff.  Worse yet, they are assigning Robin... Di... Angelo.  [Facepalm.]  This has two indirect effects on students.  It means that teachers come out of the "critical race theory" school of thought, so to speak, and it means that those who design curriculum are CRT devotees.

That has led to parent complaints.

And that is why we are having this yelling match.  The kids don't have to be assigned Derrick Bell or Kimberle Crenshaw, or Robin DiAngelo for those concepts to influence the educational system.  These authors just have to be assigned to the teachers.  

So here's what happens.  What happens in K-12 classrooms around the country varies widely, and what evokes the ire of parents will similarly vary widely.  If you want to go watch videos of school board meetings, read letters, etc., have at it.  Some of the parents have justifiable concerns.  Some are just jerks.  That's that thing called "variation."  As in, not a "constant."  As we consider these issues, let's take a look at the current conflict, which is over the Tennessee requirements on "critical race theory," with very intentional quote marks.  If you follow this stuff, you may have read that Tennessee will fire teachers who teach "critical race theory," yet the restrictions never mention "critical race theory."  Let's actually do something strange and look at the strictures.  Here's the link.  First do a quick search, and notice that "critical race theory" is never mentioned.  Not-a-once.  But let's skip to the actual curricular requirements and limitations, beyond the bureaucratic and procedural blather, as such documents always have.  They are quoted below, and annotated, with my annotations italicized.

___________________

0520-xx-xx-.03 PROHIBITED CONCEPTS 

(1) The following concepts are prohibited concepts that shall not be included or promoted in a course of instruction, curriculum, instructional program, or in supplemental instructional materials: 

    a. One (1) race or sex is inherently superior to another race or sex; 

        Does anyone actually object to this prohibition?  Really?  I'm kinda OK with this restriction.

    b. An individual, by virtue of the individual’s race or sex, is inherently privileged, racist, sexist, or oppressive, whether consciously or subconsciously; 

        There are several parts here.  Calling people inherently racist, sexist or oppressive, not based on what they do, but based on their race or sex... this is a big part of DiAngelo-style CRT.  It's also really ugly, and what's driving a lot of parental complaints.  On first principles, it is difficult to argue with this.  Telling children that they are intrinsically racist because of their race?  Do you really want to defend this?  This really is part of CRT, though.  Where it gets tricker is "privilege."  (b) prohibits teaching the concept of "white privilege."  Remove "privileged," and (b) becomes entirely non-controversial for any sane person, and even the prohibition on teaching "white privilege" leads to the question of its inclusion in K-12 curriculum.  "White privilege" is a squishy concept, that is often conflated with class, the absence of anti-black racism, and a variety of other things that just make the concept analytically problematic.  Can it be useful?  Arguably.  Does it have a place at the college level?  Certainly.  K-12?  K-12 can do without it.  I see no reason that it is necessary in K-12 education.  College-level courses in sociology, history and other disciplines should explore its facets, but why are K-12 teachers teaching about "white privilege?"  The short answer is that they believe their job is left-wing social activism.  Intellectually, though, this is not a necessary component of K-12 education.  If you removed the word, "privileged" from (b), this provision should be entirely non-controversial, yet arguing that "white privilege" is a necessary element of K-12 curriculum?  That's a stretch.  It is an ideologically fraught concept that class-based analysis rejects.  So...  I could remove the word from the rule and be content.  I can remove the concept of "white privilege" from K-12 curriculum and be content.  Firing teachers for mentioning it?  I'd oppose that, but there's a lot here.  And most of this should be non-controversial.

    c. An individual should be discriminated against or receive adverse treatment because of the individual’s race or sex; 

    Um... yeah.  Now, why is this here?  Is it here to ban the teaching of anti-black discrimination?  No, it's actually there to ban advocacy of race-based affirmative action.  You may support race-based affirmative action, but schools shouldn't be advocating it in their curriculum.  That's not their place.

    d. An individual’s moral character is determined by the individual’s race or sex; 

    This is a thing that should go without saying.  Why is this here?  There is a dualism at the heart of all CRT-based social analysis:  the oppressor-oppressed dynamic.  In its most extreme form, moral character, at an individual level, is attributed to people in a Calvinistic way based on membership in their oppressor caste, or oppressed caste.  DiAngelo and her ilk... they're big on this.  Consider the following construction:  "racism equals prejudice plus power."  It is a common platitude for CRT-types, particularly the less-sophisticated variants (who inhabit Ed. schools).  Now think about what this construction says.  First, you define "power" as intrinsically linked to whiteness rather than any concrete resources or tangible position in society, and you have definitionally exempted all African-Americans away from the charge of racism.  Then, you take the next step and argue that all white people have at least some implicit biases constituting "prejudices," and you have shown, via definition, that all white people are racist.  Define racism as the worst evil, and, well, do you see why (d) is here?

    e. An individual, by virtue of the individual’s race or sex, bears responsibility for actions committed in the past by other members of the same race or sex; 

    Do you really want to disagree with this?  Now why is this here?  "Original sin."  You hear this phrase all the bloody time.  It is not mere affectation.  The use of the word, "original," is not merely intended to convey "first," in a highfalutin, semi-colloquial way.  The doctrine of original sin is that the descendants are born guilty of the sins of their forbears.  It is the theological doctrine that we are all guilty of Adam and Eve's sin of eating of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, because Adam and Eve did.  (No, it wasn't an apple.  Read a fucking begetting book.)  That's original sin.  You must repent their sin, into which you were born, and blah-blah, perform some ritual cannibalism, because you are guilty of their sin.  That's original sin.  When you hear a CRT-type describe slavery as "America's original sin," they do not merely mean that it is America's first sin.  They mean that if you are white, you are born guilty of it, in the same theological, cosmic/moral/fruit-eatin' way.  That sin stained your soul before you were born, and you can never be cleansed of it.  Same thing.  That is why they use the term.  You are sinful and guilty, because of the color of your skin.  This is how they see the world, and how they talk about the world.

    f. An individual should feel discomfort, guilt, anguish, or another form of psychological distress solely because of the individual’s race or sex; 

    Are you challenging this?  Put it behind the Rawlsian veil of ignorance.  Imagine it were African-Americans, or women made to feel uncomfortable on the basis of race or sex.  Would you be groovy with that?  No?  Then accept this rule.

    g. A meritocracy is inherently racist or sexist, or designed by a particular race or sex to oppress members of another race or sex; 

    This one doesn't mention "critical race theory," but it directly prohibits a concept that is core to critical race theory.  In a college class, I'm totally cool with professors playing around with the proposal that a meritocracy is a biased concept.  I'll do my best to correct their flawed reasoning.  But... academic freedom.  K-12?  Here's the problem.  What you are actually telling children-- minority children-- is that they can't compete.  They're fucked, so don't bother.  The most harmful thing you can do in a school is to teach kids lack of agency.  Yeah, ban this from schools.  Don't teach kids that they have no agency, and that they are just fucked.  That's what this is.  And since the CRT argument is bullshit, teaching agency has the benefit of being both individually beneficial, and true.

    Yes, you have merit, and merit works.  That doesn't mean there are no biases or obstacles, but don't listen to people who tell you that you are condemned by your race, and that a "supreme" race won't let you succeed.  The people telling you this are your real enemy because they are telling you to give up.  Prove them wrong by showing merit.

    h. This state or the United States is fundamentally or irredeemably racist or sexist; 

    Like (g), this directly prohibits a core concept from critical race theory (the permanence of racism).  In college classes, play around with this stuff.  Academic freedom.  There are elements of CRT that may have a place in K-12, in some form, like a softer version of "whiteness as property."  This one, though?  This is both nonfalsifiable, and fundamentally anti-American propaganda.  Teaching that racism is real, and that there is a history of racism, and that racism still exists?  Yeah, absolutely teach that because it's true.  Where you cross a line is the "fundamentally or irredeemably" thing.  That's just teaching kids to hate America.  Try reconciling "America is irredeemably racist" with "America is an OK place."  If you can reconcile those, then either your sophistry is more nimble than mine (not bloody likely), or you just have more capacity for cognitive dissonance than I do.  (h) is about anti-American propaganda, and remember what is at the core of critical race theory.  It is an indictment of everything about America, and a demand to tear down everything.  It is... revolutionary.  Leading to...

    i. Promoting or advocating the violent overthrow of the United States government; 

    This should be a no-brainer, and I've never heard of a teacher advocating this, but it is included because CRT is often advocated with silly platitudes like, "you cannot dismantle the master's house with the master's tools," when you dare to advocate science, rationality, and such Enlightenment concepts.  So... what do they want to dismantle?  The... system, or something.  It gets unclear, but this is kind of there just 'cuz. 

    j. Promoting division between, or resentment of, a race, sex, religion, creed, nonviolent political affiliation, social class, or class of people; 

    Is this really controversial?

    k. Ascribing character traits, values, moral or ethical codes, privileges, or beliefs to a race or sex, or to an individual because of the individual’s race or sex; 

    Ditto.  Is this controversial?  Except that it is, to critical race theorists in the DiAngelo tradition.

    l. The rule of law does not exist, but instead is series of power relationships and struggles among racial or other groups; 

    This cuts to the core of critical race theory, which sees everything as a social construct built around an oppressor/oppressed dynamic.  I wouldn't ban this, either in a college, or K-12 level.  I don't think it is the best way to look at anything, but it can be, in some circumstances, a useful lens, so really, I'd take this out.  (l) should go.

    m. All Americans are not created equal and are not endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, including, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; or 

    OK, I got a problem here, but it's not a CRT problem.  It's a religion problem.  The founders were adherents to a natural law perspective on rights, but natural law is a religious concept, and teaching religion is prohibited by the establishment clause of the first amendment, so I got a real problem here.  From an historical perspective, teach that the framers saw the concept of rights from the natural law perspective, yeah, absolutely, but I don't like where they're going here.  But... for Flying Spaghetti Monster's sake, I know I'll always lose this battle.

    n. Governments should deny to any person within the government’s jurisdiction the equal protection of the law. 

    Do I really have to explain why this should be non-controversial?

_________________________

Now let's take a step back and notice what is not there, aside from any mention of the phrase, "critical race theory."  After all, several of those prohibitions reference elements of critical race theory-actual.  What is not prohibited?  The history of racism, discrimination, racial inequality, or anything that could be described as a warts-and-all history of America.  What else is not prohibited?  Systemic racism-- the observation that a system can produce racially disparate outcomes even if no one within the system harbors animus nor discriminatory intent.

Put more directly, all of the false descriptions of critical race theory offered by CRT defenders are permissible under the Tennessee guidelines.

A warts-and-all history does not violate the guidelines unless it is couched in a framework that runs afoul of (h), and the "fundamentally or irredeemably" clause.  Such would be unnecessary, nonfalsifiable, ideological, and propagandistic anyway.  So go for it.  Teach warts-and-all.  We're all cool here.  Is there any clause that could conceivably prohibit teaching the existence of or history of racism or racial inequality?  No.  Not unless you ascribe guilt to all white people on the basis of their race, which is a theological doctrine that really should be kept out of schools, theological as it is.

So sure.  Teach Tulsa, racial wealth gaps, and all of that.

Now, let's go back to the silly yelling match.  As part of our public yelling match, a defender of "critical race theory" makes a media appearance to defend the use of CRT in schools, and tells a bunch-o lies about what critical race theory is.  Our CRT-defender says that critical race theory is necessary, and falsely describes it as "the complete history," including the ugly side, racism, discrimination, inequality, systemic racism, and so forth.  Our CRT-defender insists that these topics must be taught, and objects to any proposed CRT ban as culture war nonsense.

Yet, all of the things that our CRT defender claims to want taught, and claims as the definition of CRT, remain totally kosher under the Tennessee guidelines about which critical race theorists are fuming.

Either these people haven't read the rules, or... they know they're full of shit.  (Or, in principle, both can be true.)

These rules, then, create something of a put-up-or-shut-up moment.  Defenders and apologists for critical race theory claim that it is just the true, full, warts-and-all history of America.  If that's all it is, then these rules are no obstacle.  Everyone can agree on them.

Can we quibble over some of it?  Sure.  I see no reason for the concept of "white privilege" to be part of K-12, for example.  It is intellectually debatable how much of what gets called "white privilege" is separable from class, and how much of it is simply the absence of anti-black racism, which shouldn't be called "privilege,"-- rights versus privileges!!!-- and K-12 schools teach it because of social activism rather than intellectualism.  Would I fire teachers for teaching it?  No, but it's not a necessary component of civics education.  Hell, kids come out of K-12 without knowing the three branches of government.  Let's deal with that before haranguing them about "white privilege."

Most of these rules should be completely non-controversial, and if critical race theory defenders were being sincere, they would be on-board, and up-front about the fact that the rules do not in any way prohibit what they claim to want taught in schools.

What do we learn from the fact that the CRT side is going nuts about Tennessee, and similar rules?

They were lying all along.  Yeah, a bunch of them aren't reading these rules, but the teachers, and those directly involved in education policy?  They're reading these rules.  I am admittedly weird for following up, but I'm not literally the only one reading the rules.  They know what these rules say.  They know they don't prohibit history education, nor any of their other disingenuous defenses of "critical race theory."  So why are they doing it?  They're... lying.  How can they lie so brazenly?  In such a Trump-like fashion?  They're critical race theorists.  Narratives and counter-narratives.  Yeah, they're not too dissimilar from Donald Trump, in the end.  They don't believe in truth, they see everything in terms of a racial conflict... two sides of the same coin.

Could I agree to these rules?  They aren't precisely the rules I'd write.  My annotations indicate where I would differ.  At the college level, academic freedom must be the rule, and that means critical race theory gets taught in some classes, and debunked in others.  Academic freedom!  In K-12, though?  We have some problems.  Not uniform problems, because they can vary by school district, school, or even classroom, and if we're being honest, most of what happens in most classrooms is dealing with...

standardized tests.

For better or worse.

Yet these rules didn't come out of nowhere.  Think if it this way.  If you are walking down the street in a a city you don't know, and you keep seeing signs that say, "no public urination," that means the city has had some problems with public urination.  That doesn't mean that everyone everywhere is pissing on the street at all times, but it has happened enough that those signs have gone up.  And those signs, realistically, may not stop all of the public pissing.  But you aren't going to see those signs in, say, Mecca.  I'm guessing.  I've never been there, but it's a place where I doubt there's an epidemic of public urination, such that they need to put up signs with dudes with their schlongs out, lettin' it rip, surrounded by a circle with a line through it.  If you have been there, and your ankles kept gettin' wet, feel free to correct me, but my understanding of Arab culture is that it is big on cleanliness and hygiene.  And not whippin' it out in public.

Anyway, sorrynotsorry about that.  Now for the weirdest segue ever.  Herbert Kaufman.  Red Tape.  It is a book about rule-making.  Bureaucratic rules don't come out of nowhere.  They are created in response to specific problems, although they often persist long after the problem ceases to exist.  They constrain bureaucratic actors to prevent arbitrary abuses of power, and after a sufficiently long period of time, you get webs of rules that are inscrutable, although any given rule was created for a purpose that made sense at the time, in response to a specific abuse.  Someone demanded the rule!  For a reason that made sense at the time!  We're seeing this now.  There are bad actors.  How many?  Since we aren't collecting formal data, that's really hard to say.  We have anecdotes, and that's not a comfortable position for a number-cruncher like me.

So the problem becomes, how constraining are the concessions in these rules, versus the value of the important parts, when we don't have formal data on the frequency of abuse?

The thing is, we shouldn't need rules to tell teachers not to tell kids that they are guilty of the moral sins of their forbears, just because of their race.  Like, in the modern world, we shouldn't need signs about public urination.  But... we do, on both counts.  This is the problem of rule-making in the context of bureaucratic abuse.  Because yes, there are teachers who are acting like douches by doing something other than just teaching warts-and-all history.  How many?

Damn it, we don't have data.

So what's happening?  Rule-making.  On stuff for which we shouldn't need rules.

And as a consequence, a public yelling match.  A loud and dishonest one.  I have a headache.  Do you have a headache?  I have a headache.  I want people to stop yelling.  Then again, I'm ranting in a very yell-y way.  So, I'm kinda part of the problem.

But the thing is, if more people actually read Bell, Crenshaw and the rest, we wouldn't be having this yell-athon.  Why not?  Because the mainstream left would stop defending them.  CRT would be pushed off to the side, kicked out of Ed. school curriculum, and we'd be done with this.

Critical race theory is not what its defenders claim.  It is not "the complete history," the history of racism, discrimination, racial inequality, or anything like that.  It is not systemic racism, or any semantic variation of that scholarly concept.  It is an ideologically extreme conspiracy theory, and one that is hostile to both modern and classical liberalism.  Many of its public defenders are excoriated by the very scholars whom they defend.  It is bizarre in the extreme that we have any sort of public discussion of critical race theory, much less one in which those attacked by the school of thought publicly defend it, yet here we are.

Hey, did you see that UN climate report?

At least we won't be "here" doing this forever...

Some music.  Galactic, "Quiet Please," from Crazyhorse Mongoose.