Critical Racial Theory As a Window

 

Mad Dog has spent some maddening hours trying to suss out what people mean by "critical race theory.
His initial predisposition was to think it must be a good thing because Donald Trump had issued an executive order against it, which is ordinarily a pretty reliable indicator that it must have some positive value.

August Macke

The whole issue came up because "critical race theory" (CRT) was the subject of a bill from one of Hampton's very own delusional duo, Representatives Abramson and Emerick, outlawing the teaching of CRT in New Hampshire public schools, which stopped short of demanding the burning of books or burning school teachers at the stake, but was very clear it meant to stop discussion of objectionable ideas in public schools, which, after all, should never be places where ideas are discussed unless they are unobjectionable and preferably screened for purity by Mr. Abramson and/or Mr. Emerick.

August Macke

Here is a selection of CRT pearls, which Mad Dog extracted from Wikipedia:

1/ "Critical race theory is loosely unified by two common themes: first, that white supremacy, with its societal or structural racism, exists and maintains power through the law;^[6] and second, that transforming the relationship between law and racial power." 

Recently, Mad Dog has become aware of the role played that Federal law which prevented Black veterans from getting low interest loans for houses through the GI bill after World War II. This is one area which is very clear: Most baby boomers benefited from the wealth generated from  home ownership and the appreciation of real estate. Mad Dog was unaware that Black veterans were denied this. Laws which established school segregation played an obvious role in keeping the Negro down. So this seems hardly controversial. 

Obadiah Youngblood

2/ RTC  favors "a race-conscious approach to social transformation, critiquing liberal ideas such as affirmative action, color blindness, role modeling, or the merit principle;^[28] and an approach that relies more on political organizing, in contrast to liberalism's reliance on rights-based remedies." 

Mad Dog has long had reservations about affirmative action, believing it undermines the idea of "meritocracy."  But that has changed, over time, as Mad Dog has come to doubt the legitimacy  of "meritocracy" as it is practiced in academia. It was pretty clear to Mad Dog that for four or five decades, saying a person went to Harvard conveyed with it the idea that person was intellectually superior, because, after all, he had been tested and verified to be a person of genius. Even Harvard graduates talked about the strategy of holding back, before unleashing "the H-bomb" on prospective employers or fellow employees. But if that Harvard grad were Black, whites tended to smile a knowing smile and say, "Oh, well...he's Black," meaning, that credential loses its meaning for a Black. All this meant that the Black genius was denied his due simply because Whites assumed he was judged by a different standard.

Color blindness struck Mad Dog as a good thing, a desirable outcome. Mad Dog loved the idea that when musicians audition for the New York Philharmonic they perform behind a screen, so the judges judge only the music they can hear, and do not choose by gender, race or age.

August Macke

3/ "Criticism of civil-rights scholarship and anti-discrimination law, such as Brown v. Board of Education. Derrick Bell, one of CRT's founders, argues that civil-rights advances for black people coincided with the self-interest of white elitists. Likewise, Mary L. Dudziak performed extensive archival research in the U.S. Department of State and Department of Justice, including the correspondence by U.S. ambassadors abroad, and concluded that U.S. civil-rights legislation was not passed because people of color were discriminated against; rather, it was enacted in order to improve the image of the United States in the eyes of third-world countries that the US needed as allies during the Cold War."

So now, the motive for the man who insists on 

anti-discrimination has to be altruistic and pure? 

4/ "Standpoint epistemology: The view that a member of a minority has an authority and ability to speak about racism that members of other racial groups do not have, 

and that this can expose the racial neutrality of law as false."

This is particularly annoying: As if as a White person I cannot speak out 

against mistreatment of Blacks because I haven't suffered it.

Beyond this is the whiff of the aggrandizement of victim hood: 

Nobody knows the troubles I've known.

LeClerc

5/ "Empathetic fallacy: Believing that one can change a narrative by offering an alternative narrative in hopes that the listener's empathy will quickly and reliably take over. Empathy is not enough to change racism as most people are not exposed to many people different from themselves and people mostly seek out information about their own culture and group."

Again, that hierarchy of the true sufferer: As if only a Black can really 

understand the trials and degradation which Blacks have experienced.

Central Park Hippo 

6/ "White privilege is the set of social advantages, benefits, and courtesies that come with being a member of the dominant race (i.e. white people). For example, a shop attendant not following a white person around in a store because of assumption of shoplifting is viewed as white privilege. Another example would be people not crossing the street at night to avoid a white person."

This is one of those complaints with which Mad Dog loses patience. Yes, it's aggravating that a White store clerk views Black customers as potential thieves and White people cross the street out of fear of Black people. But that is the character flaw of the White person and does not directly harm, while it might demean the Black person. Look at those photos of lynchings. Those Black men were harmed and were victims of racism. When you start talking about the small stuff you diminish the really nasty stuff by including it all in the same pot.

Winslow Homer

And then there is the reaction of those who have no love for their Black brothers:

"On October 20, 2020, the Conservative UK Equalities Minister Kemi Badenoch stated that, in regard to teaching critical race theory in primary and secondary schools, "we do not want to see teachers teaching their pupils about white privilege and inherited racial guilt.... any school which teaches these elements of critical race theory, or which promotes partisan political views such as defunding the police without offering a balanced treatment of opposing views, is breaking the law". 

You know Mr. Badenoch likely has no love for the idea of a multiracial society, but CRT has played right into his hands. The idea that an argument can be presented without allowing for a rebuttal is and should be an anathema.

On the other hand, Mad Dog cannot see that examining CRT, as opposed to "teaching" it can be harmful.

There are other things Mad Dog would like to see incorporated into the curriculum of Winnacunnet High school, things like the biology and anthropology of sexual differentiation and gender identification, but given the structure of Hampton public schools, given the composition of the School Board, given the desire of public school officials to never offend parents, given the background and education of the teachers, that will likely never come to pass. For that matter, as far as Mad Dog knows, if you are parent of a Hampton teen, you could drive him 7 miles up the road to the Phillips Exeter Academy and your child would get no more enlightened on these topics, but it would cost you a lot more.