We’re at war over Critical Race Theory.
That seems a reasonable conclusion, as forces presently fight for and against the ideology.
While legislatures move to ban CRT, academia and industry are increasingly embracing it (see “College President Claims ‘Critical Race Theory Is the New Communism,’ Means It as a Compliment“)
Such is certainly the case at Columbia University, where the school’s president finds the doctrine not only alright, but “necessary.”
And not only that, but “urgent.”
For a July 1st CRT article, Columbia News interviewed law school instructors, as well as the college’s Big Cheese, Lee C. Bollinger.
President Lee was clear:
“Critical Race Theory and the essential scholarship it has advanced may challenge many long-held views, but that is what makes this work so urgent and necessary.”
He’s swollen with pride because the school’s…critical:
“I could not be more proud that it is taking place at Columbia. This is, after all, what makes universities such vital institutions in society.”
Regardless, the battle extends beyond whether CRT should be taught; there exists a degree of argument over what it even is.
To glimpse effective educational application within the CRT sphere, consider concepts Washington D.C.’s proposed ban would cancel in classrooms:
- An individual, by virtue of his or her race or sex, bears responsibility for actions committed in the past by other members of the same race or sex
- One race or sex is inherently superior to another race or sex.
- An individual, by virtue of his or her race or sex, is inherently racist, sexist, or oppressive, whether consciously or unconsciously.
- Members of one race or sex cannot and should not attempt to treat others without respect to race or sex.
- An individual should be discriminated against or receive adverse treatment solely or partly because of his or her race or sex.
- The United States is fundamentally racist or sexist.
- An individual’s moral character is necessarily determined by his or her race or sex.
- Meritocracy or traits such as a hard work ethic are racist or sexist, or were created by a particular race to oppress another.
The Columbian News headline promises a definition, too: “What Is Critical Race Theory, and Why Is Everyone Talking About It?“
Here’s what it offers:
Although the scholarship differs in emphasis and discipline, it is united by an interest in understanding and rectifying the ways in which a regime of white supremacy and its subordination of people of color in America has had an impact on the relationship between social structure and professed ideals such as “the rule of law” and “equal protection.”
Put simply, according to [Professor Kimberlé Crenshaw], Critical Race Theory is a way to talk openly about how America’s history has had an effect on our society and institutions today.
Does that seem roughly right?
For Texas Sen. Ted Cruz’s part, he’s reportedly compared CRT to the KKK, calling related curriculum “every bit as racist.”
“Critical Race Theory says every white person is a racist.”
But — as stated by Columbia News — such campaigns “are not just based on ignorance of how Critical Race Theory developed and is now applied, but also represent an attempt to stoke a reactionary resistance, rather than a broader understanding.”
The outlet goes on to assert thusly:
[CRT] is united by an interest in understanding and rectifying the ways in which a regime of white supremacy and its subordination of people of color in America has had an impact on the relationship between social structure and professed ideals such as “the rule of law” and “equal protection.”
However you want to characterize that, it’s alive and well at New York’s famed Ivy League University.
And according to the college’s head honcho, students should be taught it pronto.
See more pieces from me:
Find all my RedState work here.
Thank you for reading! Please sound off in the Comments section below.