Critical Race Theory: A trending headline that's often misrepresented
At a May 11 Meet the Candidate forum hosted by the PTA, the moderator, in between questions about the budget and state-mandated vaccinations, introduced a new category “related to Critical Race Theory.”
“How can you, if elected as a BOE member, work to address and make positive changes that would make current minority students feel equal and invite more racial diversity to the area?” she asked. Her follow up question asked candidates if they supported teaching Critical Race Theory in district schools and if so, how they would respond to concerns from parents.
Candidates seemed a little confused in response, because it was a confusing question.
Critical Race Theory (CRT) is a concept that originated from legal studies on race and identity. It was formulated as a lens that would be used by scholars to analyze the ways in which the legal system and our institutions impact the lives of people of color. Although it emerged in legal circles, it has spread to other areas of policy making, including education, but probably not in the ways you think.
While Critical Race Theory has become a major topic of discussion lately, the approach has been around for decades. Contrary to popular belief, it’s not being taught in K-12 schools and is not the same thing as implementing an anti-racist, inclusive curriculum.
Critical Race Theory as Political Football
CRT is an advanced topic that’s typically examined and discussed at the college, graduate school and scholar levels. Is it being taught in grade schools? No. But local campaigns, such as the Save Our Schools organization, argue that CRT is a “guiding manifesto for action by radical elements like the terrorists at the Black Panther Movement” and its “contemporary offspring, Black Lives Matter.” This is just one example of using the scholarly approach to drive fear and division, while misrepresenting its actual purpose and use in educational settings. Members of the Save Our Schools group claim to serve as watchdogs for local school boards and administrators, with the goal to “empower students and taxpayers by exposing corruption, mismanagement, and misleading curriculum that damages school districts and harms communities.” The same group endorsed three newly elected board of education trustees for the Smithtown district in a contentious election season that drew much media attention.
The CRT approach has been linked to any school lesson that acknowledges racial oppression or its history in our country, and it’s being misrepresented by numerous legislators and elected officials, drawing on fears of creating learning environments in which white children feel guilty for their whiteness. We may have seen a hint of that in our own community recently, when “It’s okay to be White” stickers were placed on Northport Village garbage cans this spring. We also heard our BOE candidates answer the forum questions about whether or not CRT should be taught in our schools with suggestions about how it’s a state or community decision, perhaps furthering the confusion.
Melissa Dinsman, an Assistant Professor of English at York College, CUNY, earned her PhD from the University of Notre Dame. A mother of two sons in the district, she explained: “Critical Race Theory has been around since the 1970s, but it has only recently become a political football and scary ‘boogie man.’ People need to ask themselves why this is. CRT hasn’t changed, but it has become a talking point for certain politicians. I would advise that any person wanting to know more about Critical Race Theory stop looking to politicians and sensational news articles, and instead look to the work of academics who dedicate their lives to this topic. I think if more people did this, they would find that CRT isn’t saying and doing what the politicians purport.”
CRT vs. Anti-Racist Curriculum
Advocates for implementing an anti-racist curriculum in schools may call the discussion of CRT a distraction, as it’s leading to confusion among community members, perhaps purposely. The topic is being debated in communities throughout the country, including right here in the Northport-East Northport district, but do people really understand this approach and how it’s being used by scholars?
CRT is a call to action, to confront and talk honestly about the history of inequality in this country and how it continues today. In a nutshell, it calls for looking at racism and U.S. institutions with a “critical eye.”
To date, eight states have taken steps to ban topics related to CRT in schools. CRT opponents argue it suggests people are racist simply because of the color of their skin. But advocates explain that banning discussions of race is really an attempt to shut down progress in creating equity. Schools can implement an anti-racist, more inclusive curriculum without using the CRT approach in our lessons, advocates say, as the latter is really more advanced than even high schoolers can fully understand.
Melissa noted, “Although not necessarily a part of CRT, diversifying the curriculum is something school districts around the country (including Northport-East Northport) should continue to do. I am a college literature professor and teaching diverse authors is very important at all educational levels. When you diversify a reading list and allow the voices of other races, genders, sexualities, religions, and abilities to be heard, you open up space for more people to see themselves in the literature. As a result, more students feel that their experiences matter in the classroom.”
Melissa also explained that diversifying literature, and the curriculum more broadly, indirectly teaches students empathy and to not see themselves as the inherent center of all things. It also helps better prepare students for college, as professors expect students to be well-read and exposed to non-white authors and histories, she said.
Recent history within our own community suggests that a more serious approach to teaching acceptance is necessary. Erin Brennan, a founding member of the Not in Our Town – Northport organization, referenced a July 2020 incident at a local school: “We started NIOT in direct response to the swastikas and racist terms that were spray-painted on the Dickinson Avenue Elementary School building.” One of NIOT’s goals, said Erin, is to work with the district toward a more inclusive curriculum, including the implementation of an effective anti-hate and anti-racist curriculum.
What (Actually) Is Critical Race Theory?
Critical Race Theory was built on the Civil Rights Movement, which appeared to be losing steam after the 1960s and experienced setbacks in the 1970s. The CRT movement focused on redressing historical wrongs, and highlighting the role of legal and social theory in systemic racism. In other words, CRT explored how legal and social norms in our country were perpetuating the long-existing system of oppression. It also highlighted how everyday practices formulated years ago are contributing to race inequality, but are seen as commonplace and often overlooked.
Today, there are many subgroups under the Critical Race Theory umbrella. Latino and Asian scholars, for example, study immigration policy, language rights and discrimination based on accent or national origin. All of these issues fall under the CRT movement and purpose. There are also subgroups made up of indigenous people and the LGBTQ community.
Here are the basic tenets of Critical Race Theory:
Racism is ordinary. It’s part of the usual way society does business and embodies the everyday experience of people of color in the U.S.
Racism is difficult to cure or address. Formal conceptions of “equality” will only address the most blatant forms of discrimination, such as hiring or mortgage redlining.
Large segments of society have little incentive to eradicate racism, as it advances the interests of both white “elites” and working-class people.
One’s race, as indicated by a person’s appearance, minimizes traits that we all have in common, such as moral behaviors, personality and intelligence.
Melissa proposes, “If people stop thinking about diversity and Critical Race Theory as “taking away” or as “critical of whiteness,” and instead think about it as seeing the world through another person’s eyes and experiences, we would all be more informed, more empathetic, and better prepared to redress the racial inequality of our nation's past and address its continued presence today.”
