Critical Race Theory: Who Cares?

I am more than slightly amused and agitated by the current political climate and what is being made of Critical Race Theory. After all, who knows anything about CRT? Apparently not many know much about it. Then, if that’s the case, who is talking about it as a big deal? Apparently, many people all the way from the White House to the halls of congress to the state house to my friends and neighbors, and yours as well. It has become synonymous with race and slavery and other such words and notions. It has been weaponized by some folks over on the right to beat up folks over on the left. It has left school teachers in a quandary as to how to teach the history of America in these polarized and polarizing times.

The Short Verse

The short verse, for people who like to look at short summaries of things I write, goes like this. The concept of Critical Race Theory was developed in a law school setting as a way of organizing a massive amount of information around race, racism, systemic racism, laws, oppression, and the like. It is not something that is taught in middle schools or high schools. It is taught in political science departments as what it is, a theory that organizes information. In the world from which I come, psychology and marriage and family therapy, “theory drives practice,” and the converse, “practice shapes theory.” CRT developed as a way of making sense out of complicated systems that impact people of color. It became weaponized in 2020 when a researcher was interviewed on Fox News. President Trump watched the interview and called the writer to his office a couple of days later. Soon thereafter, the President signed the executive order, “Combating Race and Sex Stereotyping,” as a reaction to sensitivity trainings that were being held at various federal entities around the country. At the same time, religious folk caught wind of it and began to make a big to-do of it which led to the Southern Baptists and their decree against it in favor of the Bible taking primacy in matters of race and racism. From there, various state legislatures in Republican dominated states took up the mantel and wrote laws outlawing CRT, despite the fact that CRT had never been taught in those states, even lifting key points from the list inside the executive order.

So, much ado about nothing. Something that academics think about has now been foisted upon the schools and teachers of our country out of a reactionary stance that will lead to downplaying the significance of race, slavery, oppression, and all manner of things that are important in this history of our country. Besides, no one teaches CRT to elementary, middle school, or high school kids. To assume such is ridiculous. Teach them the truth of America and let them know that we are a democracy, a work in progress, still ongoing and yet unfinished.

For Those Who Want More Detail, Please Read On

I am a family psychologist. I have a doctorate in counseling psychology and am licensed as a psychologist and marriage and family therapist in Texas. In my work with families, I am guided by several theories:  family systems theory, general systems theory, and by a basic set of models with their theoretical orientations and assumptions. The mantra is “theory drives practice” and “practice shapes theory.” Rather than just going on and doing stuff with individuals, couples, or families, students are taught theoretical orientations and the techniques and interventions that are consistent with those orientations. They learn what the assumptions are for those theories. There are with each theory assumptions about universalities as well as idiosyncrasies.

I have spent my academic life learning, teaching, supervising, and practicing from a number of theoretical orientations with their assumptions and interventions. I love that stuff.

In terms of Critical Race Theory. Notice the second word and the third word. Those are important. RACE. THEORY.

Some people do not know what they are talking about and their ignorance shows.

For instance, here is a politician from Colorado who seems to get a lot of traction with CRT. Lauren Boebert, @laurenboebert, who tweeted on May 20, 2021:

“Critical race “theory” is a complete farce. Anyone familiar with the scientific method would know you need a hypothesis before a theory. They use pseudoscientific terms to try and make people fall for their racist delusions.”

Her tweet is ludicrous on so many different levels. It does not merit a response other than "she needs to go back to school and attend some basic science and social science classes."

One of my questions is this:  how did a theoretical frame from an academic environment, specifically originating in a legal environment, generally taught to upper division undergraduate students, or first year law students, come to be a tire-tool for politicians and people on the right end of the spectrum? This article chronicles the story. A reporter, Christopher Rufo, did his research and appeared on the Tucker Carlson show. President Trump heard the interview, called Rufo to his office, and then on September 4, 2020, he signed an executive order. https://religiondispatches.org/where-did-white-evangelicalisms-hatred-of-critical-race-theory-really-begin/

This, however, is only one thread. Pastor John MacArthur, a minister of some renown, had been speaking and writing about the evils of CRT for some time. Southern Baptists then took it up at their national convention and approved a resolution denouncing doctrines related to Critical Race Theory.

The table was set. That which we know nothing about is now spouted in the highways and the bi-ways of life in America in print and across various social media platforms.

And then I got to thinking, “What do I know about Critical Race Theory, and how far back does my limited understanding go? I had to go no further than an article published by Hinson and Robinson in 2008.

I actually stumbled onto the concept by accident somewhere prior to 2008. Dr. Edward Robinson and I had been writing an article about African American farmers and their struggles with land loss and the USDA. Sandra Jones-Havard (2001), a professor at the University of Baltimore School of Law, a person with whom I correspond on occasion, had written materials that were game-changing for me. She helped me understand the political and economic machinations of the county committee system across America and how it had been co-opted into taking land from Black farmers.

Professor Jones-Havard made this assertion:

“In this instance, I posit that critical race theory provides a basis for understanding how flawed representational democracy presents an example of political space and its consequences. In other words, critical race theory provides a basis for examining the construction of race as a neutral, accepted dominant norm. While there is a tendency to view what is really a failed attempt at power sharing between the federal and local government as successful cooperative federalism, I argue instead that the geographical space (the county) defines the political space (who becomes representatives or members of the county committee). The all-white composition of those committees turned the race-neutral process of determining loan eligibility into one of domination and subordination (337).”

 

In other words, CRT provides a framework for understanding how a “neutral” construct like race with its application in a particular location, e.g., the county, comes to be a context in which domination and insubordination occur. White farmers elect their white friends to the committee, and those white committee members have the power to go thumbs up or thumbs down for all manner of things related to farming including farm/home operating loans, loans to purchase additional farmland, disaster relief programs and all manner of other things.

In my vernacular, I have said for years publicly and privately, “The County Committee System is the best of democracy and the worst of democracy. We get to vote, a right of a citizen of our country, and we get to vote our prejudices.” And sometimes those votes and prejudices become power and a reflection of institutional racism because the system allows itself to continue.

To back track a tad, “What is Critical Race Theory and where did it come from?” Lauren Michelle Jackson, in her article in The New York Times, chronicled the development of CRT by Professor Derrick Bell and his work in civil rights and working for Thurgood Marshall. His text, “Race, Racism, and American Law” is generally considered pivotal to the development of CRT. These things happened in the mid-1970s, not really that long ago. They happened in a law school setting, not in grass roots America. Here is the article here. 

Critical Race Theory is Defined

“Critical Race Theory, or CRT, is a theoretical and interpretive mode that examines the appearance of race and racism across dominant cultural modes of expression. In adopting this approach, CRT scholars attempt to understand how victims of systemic racism are affected by cultural perceptions of race and how they are able to represent themselves to counter prejudice.

See the full article here.

For those who want to read some more, try this one as it explains the path CRT has taken from an academic to a weapon of the right, the story is found here.

Here is another good article. 

 A good article is here.

Another good article here.

The Southern Baptist statement is here.

The President’s Executive Order, the White House to the State House

So, Trump wrote, or rather signed, an Executive Order in September, 2020. It was clearly written by lawyers and all. It provides a huge section of background, all explaining the error of our ways if we use this theoretical formulation to draw any practical conclusions. His document then lists a number of “divisive concepts,” all of which in my opinion are grossly overstated and appealing to a particular segment of our society, e.g., his supporters. See the entire document here.  

A number of states like Texas and Tennessee have developed language which mimics the Executive Order. Here is one from Texas.  

Here is the one from Tennessee.

Here is what I find most fascinating when looking at the Executive Order, Texas’ bill, and Tennessee’s bill: the bills appropriate the language of the Executive Order, and sometimes the precise language is followed. Some additions are made, but by and large, the template was laid out by the president for state legislatures to perpetuate legally. In academic circles that is called plagiarism, but I guess it’s called something else when it comes from the White House to the State House.

All of these create “straw figures” against which to fight. All of these illustrate extraordinarily shallow thinking about the history of our country, racism, slavery, Jim Crow, the mistreatment of First Nations people, and all manner of other things. They all assume that if we critique our country, that we will hate it. The opposite might actually be true. So, let’s get legislators involved in the teaching business and tell them what to teach and how and what the consequences will be if they don’t. Seems like we left out the notion that teachers are prepared and know how to teach what.

So, What is America Afraid Of?

One thing that the Texas bill includes that is not in the Executive Order nor in Tennessee’s bill, is a list of topics and key authors. Yes, Native Americans, slavery, and other key topics, along with key persons like Harriet Tubman, Frederick Douglass, and numerous others such as Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings (wow!!).  MLK, Brown v.  Board of Education, Cesar Chavez, Susan B. Anthony, the history of the KKK, the civil rights movement, and many others. It is curious that the lists are not exhaustive. Other materials can be included. Teachers, however, are limited in their ability to respond to difficult topics. They must discuss all sides of an issue, something that I think is a good idea anyway, and the topics more often than not must be student initiated. Some thing that the laws will dampen teachers’ abilities to teach. I hope to find out how it works out for teachers in my area of Texas.

So, a theory which originated in a law school setting has now been placed into law in several states and the theory has become a tire tool for which one party can beat up on another party. A legal theory that helps us to understand how we got to where we are, what we need to change, and what the future holds if we do has become overblown and taken way out of context.

So, if you ever hear me speak publicly or read what I write about the USDA and its mistreatment of minority farmers and women farmers, especially Black farmers, you’ll understand that Critical Race Theory undergirds what I’m saying or writing, but you will likely not hear me use the term. Using the term is not necessary. Where I speak and write are not law schools. That which is embedded into our laws and our systems within the US are indeed, in my opinion, based upon the color of whiteness and not just whiteness but maleness. And, it’s time for us to make sense out of these things and work toward change and equity for all of God’s children.

I think white America is afraid that it is losing ground to a brown America. Republicans are afraid of losing their footholds in American life and politics. Look at all of the voter suppression laws that are proliferating across the country. That’s a blogpost for another day.

So, What is Critical Race Theory?

The next time someone pulls this out as a tool to bash someone with, politely ask them, “Can you tell me what Critical Race Theory is all about?”

Then, sit patiently and wait.

Why Am I Writing This? The Threats and Threads of Racism

I frankly do not know what I am writing this. There are too many entanglements for the sake of clarity. Here, however, are a few random thoughts.

Jemar Tisby, Reparations, and the American Rescue Plan Act

Jemar Tisby. I was listening to his podcast this morning while exercising. He spoke of reparations and why the need for. I had read in days gone by Ta-Nehisi Coates and his compelling article about reparations. I recall Senator Mitch McConnell’s comment about sections 1005 and 1006 of The American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 as reparations. Tisby and Coates get it, and McConnell does not.

Sections 1005 and 1006 are not reparations in the strictest sense of the word. They are about debt relief for Socially Disadvantaged Farmers and Ranchers who experienced egregious maltreatment at the hands of the county FSA office of the USDA. Debt relief was allocated for those who had one of three different types of loans guaranteed by the USDA. But then, the white farmers stepped in and claimed their privilege so as to be included in the debt relief despite the fact that they are not members of the class of SDFRs and neither have they been discriminated against. Nobody ever said that farming was easy, but it should not be made more difficult because of the color of one’s skin. And that, my friends, is the root of the story of discrimination within the USDA.

White Farmers Feel Discriminated Against

To add fuel to the fire, the litigation on behalf of white farmers against the USDA and the debt relief is Stephen Miller, and also Mark Meadows, via American First Legal. As we know, Miller was in charge of trump’s aggressive immigration policy that marginalized all sorts of people. It’ll take a while to overcome those policy decisions and for trust in America to be restored. Many see this move on behalf of Miler and American First Legal as another white nationalism effort.

White farmers never ever experienced the degradation of discrimination by employees of the USDA at the County Committee level. There are literally dozens and dozens of federal reports and reports and briefs done by outside consultants which explain definitively what happened to Black farmers. For a briefer story, check out details in Hinson 2018.

The Numbers of Enslaved People Who Made it to Our Shores

I reviewed the numbers for those enslaved Africans who embarked for the Americas and those that arrived in the Americas and those that arrived in American ports. The numbers are astonishing: 12,521,335 embarked and 10,702,657 disembarked in the Americas. Into American ports disembarked 388,747 and then 835,000 were moved across the Second Middle Passage. Check out Hinson 2018 for more details.

I then reviewed some numbers of whites and Blacks back to 1790 in the census for that year and up this way. In 1790 there were 607,681 Blacks and in 1860 there were 3.95M. In 1790 there were 3.17M whites and in 1860 there were 26.92 million. And, there were 59,527 free people of color in 1790 and in 1860 there were 488,070. Whites outnumbered Blacks and free people of color.

The Economics of Slavery

 Then, I perused an online article entitled “Measuring Slavery in 2020 Dollars” published by the Measuring Worth folks. You can find the article here: https://www.measuringworth.com/slavery.php.

Slavery had incredible influences on the economic, political, and social fabric of our country.  Do not let anyone tell you otherwise. The average price of an enslaved person in 1850 was $400. In 2020, the price would be anywhere from $14,000 to $240,000. $400 was much larger than the average person’s income during 1850, so why would enslavers want to spend so much money on them. Profits. It was all about the profits. If an enslaved person costs $400 but was able to generate well up into the 100,000 during his or her lifetime, then the investment would be worth it. When compared to the costs and profits of hiring someone to work the cotton or the corn or the rice or the whatever was much, much less.

Despite the horrors that enslaved people had to endure, up to the point of death, and living on meager amounts of food, working sun up to sun down and longer, and wearing woeful clothes, the profits were clear. Take a good look at what Frederick Douglass said in chapter 7 of the “Life and Times of Frederick Douglass,” and the glaring distinctions between life in the big house and life in the row houses were brutal.

Divided by Commitment to Enslaving People for Economic Gain

And still, as we attempt to litigate or deconstruct or defend whatever our position is in terms of the Civil War, some say it was all about states rights. Others declare it was about slavery. However you cast it, it was about slavery and the right to own people because it was the best economics of the time. Here is one pivotal quote: “Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth.” The entire document is found here:  https://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_missec.asp

Black Farmers then and Now

And then switch to more modern times.  Black farmers, just a generation or so removed from slavery owned something like 16-19M acres, and there were approximately 925,000 of them. Now, there are approximately 37,000 Black farmers who are farming somewhere around 4M acres. White farmers are far more numerous and farm substantially more acreage. Their farms are larger, something like 436 acres to 120 acres. 

And then move this way a little further. In 1990 the Farm Bill designated a group of farmers as Socially Disadvantaged Farmers and Ranchers.  Not a lot of noise about that until 2020 when hidden within the America Rescue Plan Act of 2021 was a sum of money for debt relief for Black, Hispanic, Asian, and American Indian farmers and then a sum of money for programmatic sorts of things.  And then the white farmers come out en masse and file lawsuits in federal courts in Texas, Wisconsin, and Florida, led ostensibly by one of trump’s henchmen in charge of the immigration policy. Their complaints have several layers to them, all nuanced around white privilege and white supremacy, alleging that the designation of SDFRs was unconstitutional and that debt relief for that group was unconstitutional and that white farmers should have their fair share of it.

Mistreated, Discriminated Against, Now, How is That?

So, I decided to see how unfavorably the first six litigants were treated. Those six pulled in $523,000 in subsidies, MFP, and CFAP, the latter two of which are for Trump’s failed war with China and the other is coronavirus relief funds. That’s a lot of money for being mistreated between 1995 and 2020. Farmers and ranchers in the counties within which those farms and ranches are located pulled in over $1.2B during those same years. If indeed there is an appreciably small percentage of SDFRs in those counties who received little if any support in terms of subsidies, MFP, and CFAP, then I would not say that the white farmers have been treated poorly. In fact, in keeping with how the USDA has worked since the beginning, the system continues to work the way it is supposed to work, toward those who have white skin.

What About Those Threads?

So, do you see the threads of this post?

What do you see?

If you and I were talking, and if I were saying the words printed above, what would you hear me saying?