When I first saw the news coverage about Critical Race Theory (CRT) last year, my first reaction was: “People are seriously caring about CRT? Interesting.” Because CRT is a legal theory and, from what I’ve seen, the media seems to be pretty ambivalent towards esoteric legal theories. And the media is often exceptionally terrible at covering the law and the legal system. So, I wasn’t really surprised that what the articles and news shows were covering wasn’t actually the CRT that Kimberlé Crenshaw, Derrick Bell, Richard Delgado, and Jean Stefancic wrote about.1
One of the points of contention about the current CRT controversy is that people can’t seem to agree on what CRT actually is. Christopher Rufo and those persuaded by him define it one way while Kimberlé Crenshaw defines it another way. Who should we believe? Let’s dig a little deeper:
Whose definition of critical race theory is accurate: Christopher Rufo’s or Kimberlé Crenshaw’s?
According to news stories and columns, Rufo appears to have learned about critical race theory within the last few years. Crenshaw is widely recognized as the person who coined the phrase and wrote the book called, “Critical Race Theory: The Key Writings That Formed the Movement.” In a situation like this, you have to go with the more experienced expert. In this case, it’s the person who coined the phrase and wrote the book on the topic.2
Key Takeaway:
- When there’s a difference of opinions about a topic, it’s best to go with the commentator or expert who has the most experience. If the commentator is the person who came up with the name of the principle, and that commentator is still alive to talk about the topic and the ensuing controversy, the clear advantage goes to them.
Things to think about:
- Labels are often used to get people to take sides without really thinking about a particular issue. Always pay attention to the word choices and ask yourself why the writer or speaker is trying to get you to feel a certain way about the topic instead of getting you to think about it.
- Part of critical reading and critical thinking is to consider motives and bias in the speaker. When someone is communicating, it’s for a reason. As Dr. Phil loves to ask: What’s the payoff? Rufo seems to be trying really hard to “take down” Critical Race Theory and is either unaware of what it is or is intentionally trying to give it an unfair negative connotation. Why is that?
Further Reading
News articles, blog posts, and television interviews aren’t the best way to learn about critical race theory. The best way to learn about it and about the well-reasoned criticism of it is to look for what experts have written. Here are great resources to learn more:
–“Faces at the Bottom of the Well” by Derrick Bell
–“Critical Race Theory: The Key Writings That Formed the Movement”
–“Critical Race Theory: An Introduction” by Richard Delgado and Jean Stefancic
–“The Derrick Bell Reader” edited by Richard Delgado and Jean Stefancic
–“Rodrigo’s Reappraisal” by Richard Delgado and Jean Stefancic
–“For Discrimination: Race, Affirmative Action, and the Law” by Randall Kennedy
– “Racial Critiques of Legal Academia” by Randall Kennedy
- I should probably disclose that I took a course on race and the law by Professors Delgado and Stefancic while I was at Pitt Law. And this, my friends, is one of the reasons why I was pretty intrigued when I saw that there was mainstream coverage of CRT. And that’s also why I think I can talk pretty credibly about what CRT is and isn’t. ↩
- Technically, she wrote many law review articles about it and co-edited the book. But, you get my point. ↩
