It’s obvious as a matter of academic theory to study society through racial lenses among other viewpoints. But that’s not what anyone is objecting to. (Critical race theory has been around for decades without much mainstream attention or opposition.)
> The acting dean of Northwestern University Law School began a diversity event by declaring, "I am James Speta and I am a racist." He was followed by Emily Mullin, executive director of major gifts, who said, "I am a racist and a gatekeeper of white supremacy. I will work to be better." These kind recitations are now expected of anyone claiming to oppose racism.
Talk like this would have been an unimaginable norms violation just ten years ago when I was at Northwestern. And it’s “obvious” to me that it’s a terrible idea to replace our existing social norms with ones that center race in all places and at all times, and provoke confrontation along racial lines. As a “person of color” I don’t view the world through the lens of “white supremacy” out to get me. I certainly don’t want my half white daughter to view the world and the white half of her family that way. (I would go so far as to say that such rhetoric in a school environment would amount to creation of a hostile environment bordering on abuse.)
Its one thing to study history, economics, and the law through those lenses. That can lend great and valuable insights. But it’s entirely different to single out individuals as “gatekeepers of white supremacy” so as to restructure interpersonal relationships at school or work along critical race theory lines.
And the opposition isn’t just coming from the “right” but also traditional liberals. Macron is, of course, a left-leaning liberal. My mom, a Muslim immigrant who has voted Democrat ever since she became a naturalized citizen, forwarded me Donald Trump’s order banning critical race theory-based training, with the note “he did a good thing, that was evil.”
rayiner|5 years ago
What people are objecting to is the application of critical race theory to restructuring social and political relationships. Earlier this year, this happened at my law school: https://thehill.com/opinion/civil-rights/516127-the-real-con...
> The acting dean of Northwestern University Law School began a diversity event by declaring, "I am James Speta and I am a racist." He was followed by Emily Mullin, executive director of major gifts, who said, "I am a racist and a gatekeeper of white supremacy. I will work to be better." These kind recitations are now expected of anyone claiming to oppose racism.
Talk like this would have been an unimaginable norms violation just ten years ago when I was at Northwestern. And it’s “obvious” to me that it’s a terrible idea to replace our existing social norms with ones that center race in all places and at all times, and provoke confrontation along racial lines. As a “person of color” I don’t view the world through the lens of “white supremacy” out to get me. I certainly don’t want my half white daughter to view the world and the white half of her family that way. (I would go so far as to say that such rhetoric in a school environment would amount to creation of a hostile environment bordering on abuse.)
Its one thing to study history, economics, and the law through those lenses. That can lend great and valuable insights. But it’s entirely different to single out individuals as “gatekeepers of white supremacy” so as to restructure interpersonal relationships at school or work along critical race theory lines.
And the opposition isn’t just coming from the “right” but also traditional liberals. Macron is, of course, a left-leaning liberal. My mom, a Muslim immigrant who has voted Democrat ever since she became a naturalized citizen, forwarded me Donald Trump’s order banning critical race theory-based training, with the note “he did a good thing, that was evil.”