Critical Race Theory — A Simplistic Worldview for a Complicated World

An analysis of “Black Eye for America” by Carol M. Swain and Christopher J. Schorr, with a foreword by Dr. Benjamin Carson

I am an employment/ civil rights attorney. For the last forty years I have been representing employees who have been fired because of disability, pregnancy, age, and, occasionally, race. My practice has also involved employees who have suffered retaliation for reporting statutory violations.

In recent years, my practice has morphed in a disturbing direction as I have started representing college instructors who have been subjected to discipline for saying things that offend liberal taboos. In one case, the comment was that children who know their parents can resolve the philosophical problems of identity. The other involved handing out Jeremy’s Chocolates with “He/His” labels for chocolates with nuts and “She/Her” for nutless chocolates.

The former drew tears of rage from some leftists because….who knows? Racism? Pro-marriage? The latter was an “attack” on the transgender community, meriting a lengthy suspension, an expensive investigation, and a hearing.

This new development is disturbing. Colleges are already ideological straight jackets, but this hair-trigger retaliation against those who offend the outer limits of intellectual purity takes the environment to a whole new level. The clear intent and clearer effect is to make college employment lethal for anyone not far left.

The vehicle of this transformation is the ideology of “Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion” (“DEI”). California Community Colleges have incorporated the rubrics of “anti-racism” and “diversity” into the regulations requiring what instructors are to say and how they are to be evaluated. [1]

If this were happening in Florida or if it had happened in the 1950s against Communists, we would be hearing about McCarthyism and censorship. We used to hear journalists and academics speak out loudly against conformity and in favor of academic freedom, but now we hear nothing.

What happened?

In their recent book Black Eye for America — How Critical Race Theory is Burning Down the House, Carol Swain and her co-author Christopher Schorr have done a fine job of digging into the issue, showing its origins and its threats, and suggesting ways to deal with the DEI ideology.

One thing I liked about this book was its willingness to go back to the sources to support its contentions. For example, she quotes my law school professor, Richard Delgado [2] — one of the founders of Critical Race Theory (“CRT”) — to support the point that CRT is an offshoot of Marxism.

I’ve heard DEI described as “Cultural Marxism,” but I was skeptical about that description. The people I see at the universities couldn’t read Marx if their life depended on it. However, Marxism is shallowly buried in the DEI regulations.

Those regulations openly posit that “oppression” is the force that defines society. “Oppression” requires an oppressor class/group and an oppressed class/group. The conflict between the two leads to a synthesis where the oppressed throw off the chains of oppression.

This is classic Hegelianism. Marx was a left-wing Hegelian. Thus, are we ruled by Dead White Men.

Swain explains:

In simple terms, CRT views American society and government through a Marxist analytical lens, emphasizing group power and group conflict. Readers might be familiar with the standard Marxist worldview wherein the social order is defined by the oppression of workers (the “proletariat”) by the capitalist classes (the “bourgeoisie”). From this vantage point, social institutions — economic, social, security, religious, cultural, etc. — are all described as elements of capitalist oppression. Marxists consequently advocate upending the social order and reconstituting society along socialist lines. (p. 12, Kindle Edition)

I don’t credit the average DEI administrator to know any of this, but Delgado did. All DEI managers need to know is how to parrot phrases invented by Delgado and other CRT thinkers.

So, what is CRT? This definition surprised me:

At this point, many readers of this book will ask themselves where this hateful and divisive ideology comes from. To answer that question, we first turn to two prominent CRT proponents, husband and wife Richard Delgado and Jean Stefancic, both of whom are law professors and social critics. Delgado, believed to be one of the founders of CRT, and Stefancic define CRT as, “a collection of activists and scholars interested in studying and transforming the relationship among race, racism, and power.” Studying race, racism, and power seems like a worthy pursuit, unlike say, bullying children. How then might the one lead to the other? How is it that CRT scholars and activists go about their task? (p. 12, Kindle Edition)

So, CRT is a “collection of activists and scholars”? It is a group, rather than a set of principles? That makes it sound more like a political party, than a school of thought. It sounds like the Bolshevik Party, which had the ability to excommunicate party members and redefine truth. For the Bolsheviks, truth was whatever the Party made it.

Consider the ability of DEI/CRT to define away racism so long as the racism is directed against whites (and Asians (and Jews)). Swain observes:

They find racism nearly everywhere, including in day-to-day interactions where the uninitiated might never think to look — e.g., a stranger failing to wave to you. In this view, racism is the primary cause for differences in outcomes between racial groups — e.g., in income, educational attainment, incarceration etc. It cannot be the case, for example, that a black/white difference in incarceration rates could exist independent of present-day racial oppression. For example, to the CRT advocate, pointing out that violent crime rates differ by racial group, and that violent crime presumably has something to do with incarceration, misses the point. All disparities reflect unequal (racist) treatment somewhere in “the system.” This perspective is perhaps most prominently advanced by Ibram X. Kendi. Kendi explains, “When I see racial disparities, I see racism. But I know for many racist Americans, when they see racial disparities, they see black inferiority.” He thus treats racial disparities (unequal outcomes) as straight-forward evidence of racial discrimination (unequal treatment). The system must be racist, Kendi argues, because absent racial discrimination, the only explanation for racial disparities must be that some racial groups are just better than others — e.g., smarter, less criminally inclined, etc. This is a simplistic and disingenuous argument. (p. 13, Kindle Edition)

Disparities that disfavor Blacks are racism. Disparities that favor Blacks — professional basketball players, for example — are not racism. Racism explains why Blacks are not admitted into Ivy League schools, but racism does not explain how Asians are admitted at disproportionately higher rates. How does that work?

Also, DEI simplifies “oppression” to one dimension, i.e., race. Religious differences, class differences, ethnic differences, etc., none of them matter. DEI’s oppression narrative airbrushes out the fact that Asians and Nigerian-Americans have a higher income and college admission rate than whites. It is a strange kind of systemic racism that can distinguish within racial groups with this kind of precision.

The willingness to jettison principles in favor of power is also Bolshevik. DEI/CRT is not shy about advocating racial discrimination so long as it favors the right groups (something that their Bolshevik ancestors would have endorsed):

A few prominent proponents are willing to speak plainly in support of CRT. To his credit, Ibram X. Kendi is quite candid in How to Be an Antiracist (2019) when he states, “The only remedy to racist discrimination is antiracist discrimination. The only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination. The only remedy to present discrimination is future discrimination.” (p. 52, Kindle Edition)

Incredibly, DEI now posits that “colorblindness” is racist:

If that description sounds implausible, consider the following from a Psychology Today article titled “Colorblind Ideology Is a Form of Racism.” The article correctly describes colorblindness as an “ideology that posits the best way to end discrimination is by treating individuals as equally as possible, without regard to race, culture, or ethnicity.” It then acknowledges that colorblindness amounts to “really taking MLK seriously on his call to judge people on the content of their character rather than the color of their skin. It focuses on commonalities between people, such as their shared humanity.” The article then goes on to explain why ignoring skin color is racist. (p. 14, Kindle Edition)

This ideology has made its way to the Supreme Court. The recent Affirmative Action Decision contained an eye-opening debate between Justice Thomas and Justice Jackson-Brown about whether the 14th Amendment was intended to permit racial discrimination in favor of Blacks.

Another feature shared with Marxism is that it doesn’t work. There is no evidence that DEI policies have done anything to reduce disparities anywhere. Like Communism, DEI makes things worse.

First, it encourages racism and stokes white racial resentment:

In practice, this theory means that statements such as the following from Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan are “not racist”: “White people deserve to die, and they know, so they think it’s us coming to do it.” Such a statement would be called “racist” if uttered by a white speaker substituting the word “white” for “black.” Hypocrisy is one of the hallmarks of CRT. It is also noteworthy that the prejudice plus power definition does not take into account power differences at the individual level. This means that if a racially prejudiced person of color in a position of power (e.g., a politician, judge, or police officer) acts in a racially discriminatory or hateful manner, that person cannot be labeled “racist.” (pp. 14–15, Kindle Edition)

People know hypocrisy. DEI tells people that there is such a thing as micro-aggression and implicit bias, but when actual, in-your-face aggression occurs, whites are told that they are showing “white fragility” if they object:

On this absurd edifice, CRT scholars additionally assert that all whites are racist, that disagreement or discomfort with this claim is also racist (“white fragility” and “white women’s tears”), and that indifference or disinterest in so-called “antiracism” efforts is . . . wait for it . . . racist (“white ignorance,” and “white complicity”). CRT scholars go so far as to assert that it is impossible for white people to engage with people of color in good faith and that common ground can only be found under conditions of converging racial interests. (p. 15, Kindle Edition)

DEI/CRT is divisive and demoralizing. It teaches minority students that things like hard work and punctuality are “white values” as explained in the Smithsonian National Museum of African American History and Culture’s article, “Aspects and Assumptions of Whiteness and White Culture.” Swain advises:

Under CRT-inspired instruction in K-12 schools, American children are now taught to view racism as the cornerstone of American society. They are taught that whites dominate a racial hierarchy in America and exercise power as a group. White students (again, children) are forced to confront their supposed “hidden racism” and its effect on society. In some school districts, claims of systemic racism are introduced to students in the first grade. By junior high, students are taught radical and divisive perspectives on “whiteness” — e.g., that any white person who has failed to proclaim himself or herself an “antiracist” is a “white supremacist,” regardless of whether he or she rejects notions of racial superiority. Much like employees undergoing “diversity, equity, and inclusion” training, students are strongly discouraged from challenging these claims and have been punished for doing so. (p. 11, Kindle Edition)

CRT is undermining America in the face of totalitarian dictatorships that engage in racism and genocide:

CRT is even impacting US foreign policy. Adversaries such as China and Iran leverage CRT claims to diminish American prestige (soft power) and to deflect criticism from their governments’ humanitarian abuses. As recently discovered by the Biden Administration during a humiliating exchange with its Chinese counterparts, it is difficult to stand up to such attacks when your opponents repeat your own administration’s anti-American rhetoric back to you. The simple truth is that America is being destroyed from within and very few of us presently understand what is happening or know how to fight back in an effective manner. We hope to remedy the situation by doing our small part and by encouraging you to do yours. As a nation, we are stronger together: our national motto is E Pluribus Unum, “Out of Many, One.” (pp. 16–17, Kindle Edition)

Ultimately, DEI/CRT are antithetical to liberalism:

Classical liberalism is a philosophy that promotes protecting civil liberties and limiting the role of government. It is fundamental to American democracy; CRT, however, strongly rejects this tradition. In this way, Critical Race Theory is anti-American in the same way that the sky is blue and water is wet. To their credit, CRT advocates do little to hide this. In their introduction, Delgado and Stefancic write, “unlike traditional civil rights discourse, which stresses incrementalism and step-by-step progress, Critical Race Theory questions the very foundations of the liberal order, including equality theory, legal reasoning, Enlightenment rationalism, and neutral principles of constitutional law.” They state further that CRT proponents “are suspicious of another liberal mainstay, namely, rights” and that “classical liberalism is overly caught up in the search for universals.” By the “liberal order,” “classical liberalism,” and of course, “rights,” Delgado and Stefancic refer to the principles underlying the American system: those enshrined in the Declaration of Independence. These include equality under law (“equality theory”) and individual rights naturally belonging to all people (“universals”), as informed by a rational (Enlightenment) understanding of the world and by republican traditions of self-government. Rejecting this tradition, opposition to freedom (e.g., speech and property rights), individualism, meritocracy, the rule of law, impartial justice, and even equality are consistent themes in CRT scholarship and advocacy. Proposals for mass property confiscation and race-based redistribution and for a federal Department of Antiracism superseding all laws and government action (i.e., democracy) illustrate the tyrannical and even totalitarian tendencies that befit a movement descended from Marxism. (pp. 30–31, Kindle Edition)

Swain made an interesting point that I would have missed. CRT/DEI goes so far as to make heretical religious demands, at least according to Ibram X. Kendi:

This is not to say that Critical Race Theory is only indirectly opposed to Christianity. Consider, for example, the distinction drawn by Ibram X. Kendi between, in his words, “liberation” and “savior” theologies. Kendi describes the former as a commitment to radical social activism, as informed by a vision of Jesus Christ as a political revolutionary struggling against oppression. He describes the latter as one where individual sinners are saved through their faith in Jesus Christ. Christian and non-Christian readers alike will recognize Christianity in “savior theology.” Kendi goes on to assert that “antiracists” (CRT advocates) must reject savior theology (Christianity, traditionally understood) because it . . . . . . goes right in line with racist ideals and racist theology in which they say, you know what, black people . . . other racial groups, the reason why they’re struggling on earth is because what they are behaviorally doing wrong and it is my job as the pastor to sort of save these wayward black people or wayward poor people or wayward queer people. That type of theology breeds bigotry. Kendi’s claims here are consistent with his earlier referenced claims regarding the meaning of racial disparities. “Sin” is to be found in oppressive power structures, not in individual people. It certainly doesn’t reside in the victims of oppression. (pp. 40–41, Kindle Edition)

Swain has a good section on the conflict between CRT and Christianity. If this pans out, DEI regulations may be susceptible to objections based on the freedom of religion. [3]

Swain offers a good plan of counter-attack based on “Voice” — speaking out against CRT; “Exit” — abandoning corrupted institutions; and “Guerrilla Warfare” — attacking CRT when and where available.

As an attorney, I am fighting for liberalism by representing those who are oppressed by DEI. For others, Swain recommends learning about CRT, building coalitions, and fighting where you can.

It is imperative. Bolsheviks are in control of your education system. Even the Communists were never that successful.

[1] This last week, a federal magistrate held that the California Community College District’s DEI regulations improperly infringed on the First Amendment. The magistrate’s decision was used to recommend that the district court issue an injunction against the enforcement of those regulations.

[2] I am a co-author of Richard Delgado's 1984 law review article on whether scientific research into racial differences could be suppressed. That sounds more impressive than it is since I wrote a section of the article as part of a seminar. At the time, it was an off-the-wall bit of speculation. As DEI has resulted in the termination of scientists for talking about science, I now realize how deep Prof. Delgado’s game was. I also have to think that the section I wrote — about how there was no need to regulate science because science could not impose belief on an unwilling society- was prophetic. I see in 2023 that I was saying in 1984 that society could control science by terminating scientists, chilling research, and spiking research results that didn’t fit the narrative.

[3] This is another one of those six degrees of separation moments. Swain relies on the blogger Neil Shenvi. I have had online disputes with Shenvi over my Catholic beliefs and his Protestant beliefs. Our common Christian faith, though, is under attack by CRT/DEI, which gives us a common cause and not one that is based on race. And that is why CRT is simplistic, reductionist, and misses essential data. Marxism is a reductionist philosophy. Life is complicated. Any reductionist philosophy is going to miss key information.