Critical Race Theory is racism

Racial equity is not equality, revenge against history is not justice

The Washington Post reported that parents of White students in Loudoun County, VA, have expressed outrage that their children are being forced to learn theories against their own race. 

A teacher shows students a picture of two women, black and white, standing with their backs to one another, and asks the students what they see. When one of them says “nothing,” the teacher delivers a lecture on why seeing “nothing” cannot be the answer. In short, teachers in Loudoun County — like in many other American counties — are not teaching students how to think, but what to think. American schools are turning into indoctrination camps.

The Post’s columnist says that “racial equity controversy also illustrates the unwillingness of many Whites to tolerate even modest efforts to account for racial discrimination in America, past and present.”

But past is past and there is no way to fix it, short of tampering with it and using it in political competition. As a human science, history warns against anachronism — which means judging old times by current standards. History should not be used in current political debate, and especially not used to vilify a race or favor another. 

It is unfortunate that some races try to use history to reassert victimhood. These races then think victimhood bestows on them immunity that makes their opinions infallible and makes their pleas a priority over all other problems. This is why some use history as a political tool.

History should remain history. No one in this time and age enslaved anyone, and no one should bear responsibility for what their enslaving ancestors did. Also, no one should claim credit that their ancestors died in the Civil War to end slavery. Stories of the past belong to dead people.

“Racial equity” is also problematic. Why should equity be racial instead of universal — covering all classes? According to the most recent numbers of the government’s Census Bureau, poverty rates among Blacks is the highest at 18.8 percent, followed by Hispanics at 15.7 percent, and Asians and Whites, both at 7.3 percent. 

These numbers, however, do not tell the whole story, because they are measured against the size of each ethnic group. When taken in absolute terms, numbers will show that there are two White Americans living in poverty for every one Black American, and that the number of Hispanics living in poverty is higher than that of Blacks. So how does Critical Race Theory explain that, despite slavery, the number of poor Whites is double that of poor Blacks? And how does “White privilege” benefit 18 million Whites currently living in poverty? Or how can Critical Race Theory help these Whites — along with Asians, Hispanics, Natives and everybody else — out of poverty?

“Racial equity” is clearly not an economic policy aimed at reducing poverty levels, but a tribal dogwhistle that pits races against one another. Nothing good comes out of instigation, which only begets counter instigation.   

In defending Critical Race Theory, the Post’s columnist defines is as such: “It asserts, among other things, that racism is the product of systems, not individuals, and therefore is interwoven into daily life and history in America.”

But fixing “systems” means amending regulations in ways that level the ground for everyone, giving them equal opportunity and ensuring that no Americans fall through the cracks. The federal government can invest in schools in low-income zip codes, offer millions of college scholarships for students — of any race — who score high grades. The feds are already offering affordable healthcare, a system that has room for improvement.

So which part of Critical Race Theory exactly tries to mitigate poverty based on income (institutional) rather than race (individual)? And How does sending people to awareness and racial sensitivity camps fix any system or elevate any poverty? 

Bias is part of human nature and can never be eradicated. It can be mitigated, however, by limiting its effects on institutions. No society should engineer human thought. Societies should make systems as neutral and as impartial as possible, not tilt them against one race as payback for past events. 

It is in America’s interest to cultivate tolerance rather than reinforce divisions by teaching some kids that their ancestors horribly oppressed the ancestors of other kids. This does not mean teaching history should be suppressed, but that history should be taught as a measure of gauging how far America has come in combating slavery, segregation and racism, and how past events gave us the hand that we have to play today.

Under the guise of achieving “racial equity” instead of “universal equity,” the Critical Race Theory ends up reinforcing divisions and reasserting differences between races. Pitting one race against another is, by definition, racism. Only this time it is racism in reverse: Discrimination of non-Whites against whoever disagrees with them, especially Whites, all the while thinking that revenge is justice.