Introduction

Some observers argue that progressive ideologies hold significant influence on college campuses, aiming to reshape societal norms. Drawing on the concept of deconstruction, developed by French philosopher Jacques Derrida, proponents of Critical Race Theory (CRT) created a framework that some critics call speculative or fantastical.

CRT Framework and Critiques

This framework often challenges conventional ideas in troubling ways. For instance, certain CRT scholars have critiqued concepts like punctuality or future time orientation as tied to cultural norms that may disadvantage marginalized groups—a stance detractors argue defies reason or even labels reason itself as racially biased.

CRT proponents argue it reveals systemic biases embedded in society. However, critics contend it overreaches by attributing too much to race, sometimes implying innate racial differences as a catch-all explanation.

Marxist Influences

Many key postmodernist figures whose ideas influenced CRT originated with Marxist or socialist thought. They shifted traditional Marxism’s focus from economic class to categories like race and gender identity.

Some critics also see parallels between CRT and broader movements like social justice or environmental justice, arguing these echo Marxist principles of redistribution—whether of wealth, power, or cultural norms. Advocates, however, view these as distinct efforts to address inequality. One perspective aligning with this critique comes from an observer who writes:

CRITICAL THEORY is rooted in Marxism, and SOCIAL JUSTICE, as social justice warrior Joan Alway admits above, is application of Critical Theory "affecting revolutionary social change." That revolution may be labeled liberation, cultural transformation, or Christian Social Justice, but it begins with Progressives "deconstructing" traditional Western values and culture by redistributing wealth and power. Traditional Marxists tried and failed to accomplish redistribution by establishing class equality. Twenty-first century Progressives are attempting to accomplish it by establishing "identity" equality: sexual, gender, racial equality. These Progressive efforts are evident everywhere in American culture.

Equity and Systemic Racism

What is Critical Race Theory? UCLA School of Public Affairs says,

Critical Race Theory was developed out of legal scholarship. It provides a critical analysis of race and racism from a legal point of view. Since its inception within legal scholarship CRT has spread to many disciplines...CRT identifies that these power structures are based on white privilege and white supremacy, which perpetuates the marginalizing of people of color. CRT also rejects the traditions of liberalism and meritocracy. Legal discourse says that the law is neutral and colorblind, however, CRT challenges this legal "truth" by examining liberalism and meritocracy as a vehicle for (white) self-interest, power, and privilege. CRT also recognizes that liberalism and meritocracy are often stories heard from those with wealth, power, and privilege. These stories paint a false picture of meritocracy; everyone who works hard can attain wealth, power, and privilege while ignoring the systemic inequalities that institutional racism provides.

This description highlights why terms like "liberal" can be misleading when applied to CRT advocates—they explicitly reject liberalism's core tenets, such as individual rights and neutral principles, despite often finding support among self-described liberals. This raises a question: Are these supporters masking their true beliefs, or are they unwittingly advancing a framework that contradicts their stated values?

CRT's origins, often traced to the late 20th century, also draw on ideas stretching back to World War I, when thinkers began reframing social conflicts regarding systemic power dynamics, moving away from traditional economic Marxism.

Key to CRT is its rejection of meritocracy, which it views as a tool of racial oppression. Proponents argue that rewarding effort and ability disproportionately benefits whites, implying that Black, Latino, and other minority groups are inherently disadvantaged in such systems. Critics, however, see this as a form of racial bias—suggesting that people of color cannot succeed without structural intervention.

CRT frames equity, defined as equal outcomes rather than equal opportunity, as the measure of justice; any disparity in wealth, status, or representation becomes evidence of racism.

This perspective recasts all social and historical issues in a binary of oppressed versus oppressor, a lens rooted in Marxist theory but adapted here to focus on race rather than class. Every inequality, past or present, is thus interpreted as a product of systemic racial power.

Crime Data Analysis

A good example is The "Crime and Enforcement Activity in New York City (Jan 1 – Dec 31, 2018)" from Democratic Party-controlled New York City. They note the following:

Murder and Non-Negligent Manslaughter victims are most frequently Black (62.6%) or Hispanic (24.9%). White victims account for (9.6%)... The race/ethnicity of known Murder and Non-Negligent Manslaughter suspects mirrors the victim population with Black (61.9%) and Hispanic (31.0%) suspects accounting for the majority of suspects. White suspects account for (5.4%)... The Murder and Non-Negligent Manslaughter arrest population is similarly distributed. Black arrestees (60.1%) and Hispanic arrestees (33.4%) account for the majority of Murder and Non-Negligent Manslaughter arrestees while White arrestees (4.6%)...

Does this data suggest that white individuals are murdering Black and Hispanic victims in large numbers, then somehow shifting blame to Black and Hispanic suspects? In a city governed by the Democratic Party, no less? The statistics show a clear pattern: victims, suspects, and arrestees align closely across racial groups, with Black and Hispanic individuals comprising the majority in each category.

Critical Race Theory, however, might argue otherwise. Proponents could assert that white racism indirectly drives these crimes, holding whites accountable for the actions of non-white individuals. In this view, systemic oppression—rooted in white privilege—creates conditions that lead to higher violence among Black and Hispanic communities, framing their behavior as a reaction to historical and ongoing racial injustice.

Critics of CRT, though, challenge this as a leap in logic: it attributes personal agency to an abstract "white culture" rather than individual choices or broader social factors. Critics argue that this interpretation risks denying reality by prioritizing ideology over evidence. When disparities in crime rates are explained solely as products of racial oppression, it dismisses alternative explanations—economic conditions, local policies, or community dynamics—that don't fit the narrative of race-based Marxism. The data, they contend, speaks for itself, and bending it to fit a theory undermines rational analysis.

Derrick Bell’s Role

Derrick Albert Bell, Jr. (November 6, 1930 - October 5, 2011) was the first tenured African-American Professor of Law at Harvard Law School and is widely recognized as the originator of Critical Race Theory. In a radio interview with CUNY TV on March 20, 2007, he revealed his perspective, stating:

"We live in capitalist society where some people are going to make a whole lot of money, gain a whole lot of power by the exploitation of a whole lot of other people. Now in that kind of society how do you keep the people from down below from rising up..."

Bell's words echo a critique of power dynamics familiar to Marxist thought, though he doesn't explicitly name his influences. He alludes to "great thinkers" who doubted such a system could sustain itself—likely a nod to figures like Karl Marx or his intellectual heirs, who saw exploitation as destabilizing. What sets Bell's view apart, critics argue, is his remapping of this framework: instead of class, race becomes the dividing line. In this lens, white people collectively assume the role of the bourgeoisie, wielding power through systemic privilege, while non-whites represent the oppressed proletariat, poised for resistance.

This resistance, in CRT's broader discourse, often targets "whiteness"—a term proponents use to describe not just individuals but a cultural and structural dominance rooted in white supremacy. Critics contend this approach swaps one form of Marxism for another, urging a racial uprising to dismantle these power structures. Whether this aligns with Bell's full intent or reflects an evolution of his ideas, it underscores CRT's departure from traditional economic critiques toward a race-centered worldview.

Internalized Racism and Storytelling

Karen Pyke concocted the concept of "internalized racism" or "internalized racial oppression." Being white, according to this view, inherently makes you racist, even unconsciously. Meanwhile, people of color are said to internalize a sense of inferiority, perpetuating white dominance. Critics argue that evidence for this is scarce, relying instead on anecdotal narratives rather than verifiable data.

One tenet of CRT explains this approach: "Storytelling/counter storytelling and 'naming one's reality'—using narrative to illuminate and explore experiences of racial oppression." Proponents see this as a way to elevate marginalized voices, but detractors contend it prioritizes subjective stories over objective analysis, often framing whites as collectively culpable without concrete proof.

White Privilege and Contradictions

Another key concept is: "White privilege refers to the myriad of social advantages, benefits, and courtesies that come with being a member of the dominant race, such as a clerk not following you around in a store or not having people cross the street at night to avoid you." This narrative suggests whites benefit from unearned advantages, yet critics question its universal application. For instance, do poor white individuals—many of whom face economic hardship, limited education, or unemployment—enjoy these privileges in practice? Data shows that poverty, crime, and social struggles cut across racial lines, with similar behaviors yielding similar outcomes regardless of race.

CRT extends these ideas beyond Black and Latino communities to include women, Asians, homosexuals, and other groups claiming oppression, real or perceived. Yet this raises contradictions: Asians, for example, have the highest median income in the U.S., outpacing whites. If white privilege oppresses all non-whites, critics ask, how does this square with such outcomes? The theory, they argue, struggles to explain exceptions that don't fit its narrative of pervasive racial dominance.

Judicial Critiques

Judge Richard Posner of the United States Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals blasted critical race theorists and post-modernists as the 'lunatic core' of 'radical legal egalitarianism.' To quote:

What is most arresting about critical race theory is that...it turns its back on the Western tradition of rational inquiry, forswearing analysis for narrative. Rather than marshal logical arguments and empirical data, critical race theorists tell stories - fictional, science-fictional, quasi-fictional, autobiographical, anecdotal-designed to expose the pervasive and debilitating racism of America today. By repudiating reasoned argumentation, the storytellers reinforce stereotypes about the intellectual capacities of nonwhites.

Ref. The Skin Trade, NEW REPUBLIC at 40, Oct. 13, 1997 (book review).

Posner’s critique highlights a core objection: CRT’s reliance on storytelling over evidence risks undermining rational discourse. Take the case of Henry Louis Gates Jr., a prominent scholar and friend of President Obama, who famously joined him for a beer after a 2009 incident. Police arrested Gates following a confrontation with police, which he and supporters framed as racial profiling—though the incident stemmed from his reported verbal aggression toward officers.

Gates has generally championed CRT, but he critiqued it when campus anti-hate speech codes intended to protect minorities applied to anti-white rhetoric. He argued that enforcing such rules in favor of whites could entrench their systemic power, revealing a tension in CRT’s application: equality in theory, but not always in practice.

This selective approach to rights extends further, critics say. CRT often portrays whites as perpetual power brokers, inherently ineligible for protections like those under hate crime laws. This perspective aligns with comments from then-Attorney General Eric Holder, who, in congressional testimony, appeared hesitant to extend hate crime protections to whites equally—a stance critics label as inconsistent with legal fairness. For opponents of CRT, this reflects a broader flaw: by prioritizing narrative and racial hierarchy over impartial analysis, the theory distorts justice into a one-sided framework.

Alex Kozinski, a United States Court of Appeals judge for the Ninth Circuit, criticizes the book Bending the Law Are radical multiculturalists poisoning young legal minds? He notes:

If truth does not exist, if merit is merely an expression of power, if there is no objective reality, then meaningful discourse is impossible and the hope of a just and equal society is a hoax. How, for example, can one respond to Prof. Patricia Williams's assertion that it doesn't matter whether Tawana Brawley was telling the truth or lying when she claimed she was kidnapped, raped, tortured and smeared with dog feces by white men? Either way, Williams says, Brawley was "the victim of some unspeakable crime." ... While the radical multiculturalists still make up only a minority in the law schools, they are loud and militant. They wage open warfare over appointments and tenure, the selection of deans, the scope of affirmative action and the imposition of speech codes. They brand those who oppose them as sexist, racist or worse. Farber and Sherry (the authors of the book) relate the experience of Randall Kennedy, a black Harvard law professor who wrote an article critical of radical legal scholarship. When efforts to dissuade him from publishing it failed, he was denounced for selling out his race. Can all this be shrugged off as schoolyard fun and games? Hardly. What students are taught during their time at law school profoundly affects the way they will do their jobs...

Institutional Impact

What happens when college graduates, shaped by Critical Race Theory (CRT), assume roles as teachers, deans, Supreme Court justices, newspaper editors, and more? Consider a recent Biden appointee to the Supreme Court who, during confirmation hearings, declined to define "woman." How can someone with such a perspective rule on cases involving race and gender—or influence education, law, or media—without undermining clarity and reason?

Teachers trained in CRT might prioritize systemic racism over traditional education goals. Viewing schools as racialized institutions, they could focus on historical narratives of oppression, potentially sidelining subjects like math or science if seen as reinforcing "white norms." Critics argue this risks producing students more versed in ideology than practical skills, though advocates see it as essential for understanding inequality.

College deans, as administrators, shape policy and culture. A CRT-influenced dean might champion "anti-racist" measures—diversity mandates, revised admissions, or speech codes—reflecting the theory's rejection of meritocracy and colorblindness. This focus could shift from academic rigor to racial equity, alienating those prioritizing scholarship, even as supporters claim it corrects historical biases.

Supreme Court justices carry outsized influence. Take Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, appointed in 2022, who, when asked to define "woman," replied, "I'm not a biologist." Critics tie this to CRT's view of race and gender as fluid constructs, suggesting it could lead to rulings favoring group equity over individual rights—like in affirmative action or gender cases—overriding legal neutrality. Her record so far remains pragmatic, but CRT's emphasis on narrative over reason raises questions about long-term clarity in law.

Newspaper editors with a CRT lens might steer coverage toward racial oppression narratives, downplaying data—like Asian American economic success—that doesn't fit. Framing crime statistics as solely systemic rather than individual erodes objectivity. Critics say this distorts reality for readers, while proponents argue it reveals more profound truths.

When graduates carry CRT into these roles, the theory's focus on storytelling and systemic power—over evidence or tradition—could reshape institutions. Dismissing merit as racist and "whiteness" is the perpetual target; policies and decisions might lean toward ideology rather than practicality. A justice hesitant to define terms, a teacher prioritizing equity over skills, or an editor ignoring exceptions risks a society where reason gives way to subjective racial frameworks. How far this influence spreads depends on whether these individuals temper CRT with real-world evidence—or double down on its premises.

Educational Implementation

Something called "Pacific Educational Group" (PEG) puts Derrick Bell's Critical Race Theory in public elementary and high schools focusing on "Systemic Racism." Founder Glenn Singleton on WMEZ of Macon, GA (undated) said the following:

More formally, we engage in what is called systemic transformation, which is operating from a framework of whole system change that works with everyone in the system from the board of education to beginning teachers... Critical Race Theory...helps the educator now be able to understand how race influences our day-to-day experiences and the historical implications of race... Narrator: Education experts agree that educators must be given the tools that help them examine and address the role that race plays in the success or failure to educate and engage black, brown, and Native American Indian students. California teacher Matthew Kertesz: When our black and brown students underperform, it's not based on any lack of ability, but it's because equal resources isn't the same thing as equally served. So our schools often falsely assume that kids of color can and will simply change and thrive in an environment based on white culture. Now, when our schools and society truly value our black and brown youth -- and that's shown through school culture, and practice, and policy - then we'll start to see equal performance. Narrator: The consultants at PEG design and deliver individualized, comprehensive support for school districts in the form of leadership training, coaching, and consulting. Working at all levels -- from the superintendent to beginning teachers - PEG helps the educators focus on heightening their awareness of institutional racism.

The original had been at http://www.seattleschools.org/area/equityandrace/definitionofrace.xml on 25 May 2006 but was pulled after the press jumped on it. To quote part of it:

Cultural Racism: Those aspects of society that overtly and covertly attribute value and normality to white people and Whiteness, and devalue, stereotype, and label people of color as "other", different, less than, or render them invisible. Examples of these norms include defining white skin tones as nude or flesh colored, having a future time orientation, emphasizing individualism as opposed to a more collective ideology, defining one form of English as standard, and identifying only Whites as great writers or composers. Institutional Racism: The network of institutional structures, policies, and practices that create advantages and benefits for Whites, and discrimination, oppression, and disadvantages for people from targeted racial groups. The advantages created for Whites are often invisible to them, or are considered "rights" available to everyone as opposed to "privileges" awarded to only some individuals and groups.

If one is shaking their head at this you are not alone. Source: Teaching for Diversity and Social Justice, 1997 eds. Adams, Bell & Griffin.

In another section on "equity",

To achieve equity, according to Young (1990), "Social policy should sometimes accord special treatment to groups" (meaning non-whites) (p. 158). Thus, the concept of equity provides a case for unequal treatment for those who have been disadvantaged over time. It can provide compensatory kinds of treatment, offering it in the form of special programs and benefits for those (non-whites) who have been discriminated against and are in need of opportunity."

Conclusion

I think I've presented enough here on this issue. CRT has infiltrated nearly every corner of academia. It is about Marxism based on race not class. By prioritizing narrative over evidence, rejecting meritocracy, and framing all disparities as racial oppression, CRT risks distorting rational discourse and institutional fairness. Critics, from judges to scholars, warn of its impact on education, law, and media, while proponents defend its focus on systemic inequality. The debate remains heated, with implications for how society addresses race, power, and justice.

References

Share This Article