The Bogeyman they can’t Define

Critical Race Theory [CRT] is an academic theory, much like; Darwinism, Fermat and other such theoretical disciplines, formed and used to offer an alternative and rigorously tested lens. In the case of CRT, it asserts that racism is an everyday experience for black people and that the legacy of slavery, colonialism and its aftermath is still being felt today in the form of significant racial disparities in Western societies. These disparities, both empirical and anecdotal, show that individual acts of racism within institutions are not the sole reason for those ills. It is embedded in all spheres of society. Whether, internalised, interpersonal, institutional or structural, CRT demonstrates racism is pervasive, embedded and multi-dimensional.

Ironically, the anti-CRT brigade are often unable to articulate what this theoretical discipline actually is and in the process create an avatar of CRT. The argument they advance is usually a mixture of what they assume it is and what they fear it might lead to, in short a form of xenophobia. A common, albeit misplaced claim “An individual should not feel discomfort, guilt, anguish or any form of psychological distress solely because of their race” 1 a sentiment now enshrined in law across 11 US states. In the UK the serving Equalities Minister attempted to pronounce CRT illegal, saying:

“… I want to be clear that this government stands unequivocally against Critical Race Theory…. We don’t want to see teachers teaching their white pupils about white privilege and inherited racial guilt. Any school that teaches these elements of Critical Race Theory as fact or which promotes party political views, … without offering a balanced treatment of opposing views is breaking the law”.

CRT is a convenient bogeyman for its detractors, since fragile emotions need to be assuaged. Therefore, attacking CRT, which is rooted in undeniable facts (see paragraph 1 above), aims to restrict and even deny the debate around race, as many struggle to address racial injustice in the aftermath of George Floyd’s murder. Hence the obsession with rewriting the history of slavery in ways which merely serve to prove the culture of denial. Timothy Snyder, a US academic and historian, calls this ”Memory Law” – that is, to rewrite the past and use it as a strategy to make governing easier for politicians. It puts everything race related into the past and caters to the present day emotion of the majority and typically those in power.

These types of moral panic we have been witnessing more loudly since 2020 can spread like wild fire, no matter how ridiculous or illogical. Even Australia has joined this absurdity – yes, Australia! In June 2021 their Senate voted to ban CRT from their national curriculum, although CRT was never a part of their curriculum. So this debate is becoming internationalised in unlikely places, no longer confined to countries with historically sizeable black population, the bogeyman is everywhere.

The central tenets of CRT https://globalsocialtheory.org/topics/critical-race-theory/ could be discussed at a later date, but in the meantime it should be noted that recent studies have indirectly acknowledged aspects of CRT – for example, Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities Report (Recommendation 9 refers)
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-report-of-the-commission-on-race-and-ethnic-disparities/summary-of-recommendations and the health focused “Turning the Tide” study https://www.england.nhs.uk/south-east/wp-content/uploads/sites/45/2020/10/SE-Turning-the-Tide-Strategy.pdf
concluded “We need to consider the individual and how structural, institutional and interpersonal racism and wider discrimination has impacted on them…”.

CRT offers a narrative for people of all races to work together to address the undeniable racial inequalities inherent in modern Western societies. This prospect would be better advanced if its detractors were to examine the facts in an historical, non-ideological, dispassionate fashion. It’s time to confront the bogeyman and all we really need to do is let the facts tell the story.

Dr Vivienne Connell-Hall (PhD)
Sociologist and Visiting Lecturer