Critical Race Theory by Richard Delgado and Jean Stefancic

I think whites are carefully taught not to recognize white privilege, as males are taught not to recognize male privilege.[1]

By their admission, Critical Race Theory is a compound of critical legal studies and radical feminism.[2] Both Delgado and Stefancic claim that the movement draws from Gramsci, Foucault, and Derrida, the founders of post-Modernism. In addition, they include the legacy of Sojourner Truth, Frederick Douglass, and Martin Luther King, Jr, placing their names in the same sentence as Cesar Chavez. In addition, the CRT movement built its insights from feminists' belief of the relationship between power and social roles, along with patterns of patriarchy's habits. The movement encouraged more spin-offs determined to undertake hierarchies, tracking, affirmative action, high-stakes testing, controversies over curriculum and history, bilingual and multicultural education, and alternative and charter schools.[3] Throughout each marginalized class, those within that minority are believed to be competent to speak about race and racism due to their lived experience.[4]

In Critical Race Theory, the authors speak of two groups within the CRT movement. The first is called the Idealists, who believe that racism and discrimination are matters of thinking, attitudes, and discourse. These scholars believe that society unmakes racism through changing images, words, and attitudes.[5] This school of CRT believes that race is merely a social construction, not a biological reality. These scholars believe that social teachings should be based on conveying that do not convey that a particular group of people are less intelligent, reliable, and ultimately, less American than others.[6]The second group is known as the Realists, and they believe that racism is how societies allocate privilege and status. For these scholars, racial hierarchies determine who receives tangible benefits. Such benefits include the best jobs, schools, and invitations to parties in people's homes.

Both groups believe that Civil Rights gains were given due to white self-interest. This was believed to be due to unity in the Cold War. Delgado and Stefancic write:

During that period, as well, the United States was locked in the Cold War, a titanic struggle with the forces of international communism for the loyalties of uncommitted emerging nations, most of which were black, brown, or Asian. It would ill serve the U.S. interest if the world press continued to carry stories of lynchings, Klan violence, and racist sheriffs. It was time for the United States to soften its stance toward domestic minorities. The interests of whites and blacks, for a brief moment, converged.[7]

Such interpretation is described as how recorded events can more accurately fit with the lived experiences of minorities.[8] CRT builds cases on narratives, and people of different races see different experiences. Bundles of perceived notions aid in the overall narratives.[9] This process, known as Revisionist history, serves to re-examine historical narratives, reasoning why the Supreme Court ruled Brown v. Board of Education at that time. The book continues by stating that rights can be alienating, creating a defensive and separative environment rather than encouraging communities to form close, respectful societies.[10] Delgado and Stefancic bluntly propose that "rights are almost always revoked when they inconvenience the powerful" before stating that modern conservatives oppose welfare and affirmative action, programs vital to the poor and minorities.[11] The examples utilized to disclaim First Amendment advocates' claim that the cure to bad speech is more speech with examples of non-retortable speech. There is no way hate speech can be retorted when delivered as one-on-one confrontation, graffiti, and blog posts.[12]

            According to the writers, the currently existing black-white binary dictates that other minorities must measure their experiences with Blacks.[13] Through this binary, non-black minority groups must compare their grievances with the prototypical minority; the unincluded minority groups include Asians, American Indians, and Latinos. The writers further this dilemma by acknowledging that when liberal television executives desire a minority show to be created, they refer to blacks. Delgado and Stefancic bring up that while history textbooks may devote time to slavery, they often overlook the intense persecution of the Chinese in California around the same time.[14] Such logic birthed what is known as Exceptionalism, which holds that a group's history is so distinctive that its analysis is warranted. This belief maintains that each disfavored group has been racialized in its way and according to the needs of the majority group at particular times in history.[15] Bizarrely, the writers proclaim that Whiteness is associated with goodness, while Blackness is considered flawed, culturally speaking. They do so by stating:

In the semantics of popular culture, Whiteness is often associated with innocence and goodness. Brides wear white on their wedding day to signify purity. "Snow White" is a universal fairy tale of virtue receiving its just reward. In talk of near-death experiences, many patients report a blinding white light, perhaps a projection of a hoped-for union with a positive and benign spiritual force. In contrast, darkness and Blackness often carry connotations of evil and menace. One need only read Heart of Darkness by Joseph Conrad to see how strongly imagery of darkness conveys evil and terror. We speak of a black gloom. Persons deemed unacceptable to a group are said to be blackballed or blacklisted. Villains are often depicted as swarthy or wearing black clothing.[16]

The duo later claims that Blacks who acted white were accepted and that no white is innocent due to their ancestor's actions creating the racist system.[17]

            Delgado and Stefancic propose a premise that is lacking at best. There are "citations" throughout the chapters, but not specific chapter and page numbers. In no portion of the book are facts, data, and irrefutable pieces of evidence given to bolster any claim. Throughout this book, trivialities like Peggy McIntosh's list of privileges (also with no citations to support her claim) prove their point that minorities are under-represented. Delgado and Stefancic attempt to point out disparities in representation, all without any data to back their claims. The duo brings up lived experience and cultural tradition and refers to those who "act white" as "tokens" of the system. The truth is that CRT is built upon the same soil as post-Modernism, and that is the disbelief of raw truth. Such flavors of academia prove that imagination is a good servant and a bad master. Race hustlers do not make money when everyone lives in a colorblind society, which is why those like Delgado, Stefancic, Sharpton, and Henry Rogers cannot allow such a society to be built. With that in mind, Critical Race Theory is an important book to read to understand what is being taught in schools today.

[1] Peggy McIntosh, “White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack,” Peace and Freedom (1989).

[2] Richard Delgado and Jean Stefancic, Critical Race Theory: An Introduction (New York: New York University Press, 2017), 5.

[3] Delgado and Stefancic, Critical Race Theory, 7.

[4] Ibid, 11.

[5] Ibid, 21.

[6] Ibid.

[7] Ibid, 23.

[8] Ibid, 25.

[9] Ibid, 48.

[10] Ibid, 29.

[11] Ibid.

[12] Ibid, 33.

[13] Ibid, 77.

[14] Ibid, 78.

[15] Ibid, 79.

[16] Ibid, 86.

[17] Ibid, 87.