In recent time there has been a lot of scholarly debate surrounding the topic of Critical Race Theory also called CRT for short from both leftist and conservatives about rather or not it should be taught in K-12 education as well as rather or not it is appropriate for students of any degree to learn the theory at all. Though I myself am no expert on the topic I have heard many convincing arguments on both sides about it being a necessary understanding to some sort for people to understand things such as systemic biases and racism as it pertains to particularly American history in which claims say is riddled with leftist and Marxist ideologies of what exactly that means. On the other hand; conservatives argue that it isn’t taught as theory and it doesn’t resonate in the ways they claim as a theory on systemic biases but rather a racist caveat to assert that white American children automatically carry a propensity for racism based on their skin color alone and that black American children are automatically disqualified because of their race.
Normally I would skip commenting on such an ambiguously understood topic; however, given that most of the zealous arguments for and against CRT are carried by persons who themselves barely understand the framework: I think it’s fair to say that my 2-cents may add some context in that I have carefully observed both ends of the argument from the outside looking in. Delving into the actual study; we must take a fair and honest approach to understanding the framework from an inside perspective of those who actually teach and learn CRT rather than those who ignorantly argue for and against it without context. Observing a prominent public figure Dr. Rashad Richie; a renowned teacher and advocate of CRT: By his words Critical Race Theory is an advanced theoretical framework taught on the scholarly level in which it isn’t taught at all in K-12 education. From this perspective alone one would naturally assume that it probably shouldn’t be taught in K-12 to any degree. Rather or not this framework is actually taught in K-12 educationis yet another long and drawn out debate. The assertion that it is taught in K-12 regardless of the actual truthfulness of the assertion seems to be the main argument against it regardless. Seeing many politicians engage the topic with the pros in the field; seemingly favors the arguments for the framework rather than against it. In following numerous debates from politicians, doctors, educators, and prominent public figures: I have seen some of the most intelligible conservatives I follow debate themselves into unintelligible circles in futile attempts to force-propagate the framework into an idea and ideology that it is essentially not; based on their debate tactics.
Allow us to attempt to unpack some of the misleading context surrounding what we thought it was versus what it actually is. An advanced theoretical framework based on quantitively critical analysis (If I quoted that correctly) of systems as in relates to implicit biases based on race. At a glimpse the framework seemingly attempts to re-assert that racism within systems from individual persons are not inherently racist but that the system itself is and that it must change in order for the people to change.
The change of focus from the individuals the systems would seem to be a great caveat for both sides to critically argue for and against deference in historical events concerning racial and controversial history especially America’s stained past.
One would think that conservatives more so than liberals would argue such a point. Ironically that is not the case. Conservatives line up to ignorantly badger the idea that it teaches that the individuals are racist which is a complete polar opposite of it’s actual intent. Another disagreement I would pose is the fear-mongering incentive that it is a seriously bad Idea to teach in a K-12 setting. With the many lessons that I have disagreed with children being taught in schools; I would argue that at this point why not? I have seen schools teach 6th graders advanced gender-fluidity, sexual education, and even advanced scientific theory that IMO are not at all appropriate for the grade; which leads me to lean towards believing that the ignorant arguments against and for it by persons who yet don’t even understand it, is yet just another political trend to gain traction off of. Along with the miseducation of CRT; we can clearly see most conservative pundits use it as a catch-all-term for any racial and/or controversial topic concerning race taught to children.
After unpacking some of the context of it’s actual intent and use-case; I would love to see how exactly conservatives plan to contextually ban certain civil rights and race lessons absent of CRT. Again this seems to be an opposite dynamic and more so regressive to the conservative argument but it seems that it has become such a trend to fight it on the right that they themselves can’t even see the usefulness of it in their own plight. I would also argue that even if there were actual racists attempting to shield themselves from accountability that CRT would actually help them by giving them the systemic excuse absolving them of explicit bias and assuming that any biases observed was implicitly implemented outside of their conscious understanding. If I was a liberal I would argue that if we take the CRT assertion out then perhaps persons could be held to the highest of penalties when biases are discovered being that it isn’t a system but the people that are explicitly bias instead.
In conclusion we have a conundrum of irony from the right with trends that are antithetical to their own arguments against what they argue is racist by fighting a theoretical framework that seems to absolve those within the system of individual racisms and explicit biases themselves personally versus implicit biases from a system which could muster a claim of “unbeknownst bias” instead. I would suggest that conservatives educate themselves on Critical Race Theory to propose a counter-argument “with it” rather than trying to force it away with erroneous claims that are irrelevant to both the framework and their own arguments.