Skip to main content

Critical Race Theory, the Face Behind the Mask, and Why Rob Samson Was Right


Critical Race Theory (CRT), has been “marching through the cultural institutions,” an expression often used by Marxist Antonio Gramsci, since the early 2000s.

The theory itself, according to an illuminating piece written by Christopher F. Rufo, draws upon previous work done “on updated social psychological research on unconscious bias in order to justify affirmative action; and work relying on law and economic methodology to examine structural inequality and discrimination in the workplace.”

CRT’s reliance on activism and personal narration, rather than scientific inquiry and historical research, means that it is not only a theory but an activist practice. Political radical Will Oremus argues that "The theory [is] radical... in the sense that it questions fundamental assumptions.... And unlike some strands of academic and legal thought, critical race theory has an open and activist agenda, with an emphasis on storytelling and personal experience. It's about righting wrongs, not just questing after knowledge.... Many of their ideas are not radical today in the sense of being outside the mainstream: Critical race theory is widely taught and studied."

Yes, but CRT has long escaped its academic prisons in major universities and now has leeched into the cultural institutions it plans to subtly subvert.

Some common themes in CRT may very well derive from Gramsci’s critique of the Communist effort to replace capitalism with a functioning socialist state in the developed West. Marxist-Leninist thought had failed to penetrate cultural institutions in the West, Gramsci correctly reasoned, and the saturation of Marxian theory – the “long march of communism through the institutions” – was necessary to the success of the Marxist-Leninist venture outside the borders of the then Soviet Union.

CTR has had a face, and has shown its face to the institutions it has targeted, for the last 15 years at least. It is no longer a hidden, little understood theory. Its principal enemy is not conservative thought but the classical liberalism of the post enlightenment period, the liberal body of ideas the founders of the United States relied upon when they created a durable new republic.

Here are two among many other features of CRT easily obtained from available public resources. In defending himself recently on the floor of the state Senate against charges that the fears of his constituents were largely imaginary, state Senator Rob Samson, noted that CRT was no stranger to scholarly inquiry.

Wikipedia, a site sometimes used by journalists to give shape and unction to their stories, makes note of CRT’s “Critique of liberalism: “Critical race theory scholars question [and reject] foundational liberal concepts such as Enlightenment rationalismlegal equality, and Constitutional neutrality, and challenge the incrementalist, step-by-step approach of traditional civil-rights discourse;[they favor a race-conscious approach to social transformation, critiquing liberal ideas such as affirmative actioncolor blindnessrole modeling, or the merit principle; and an approach that relies more on political organizing, in contrast to liberalism's reliance on rights-based remedies.”

It identifies Intersectional theory as an indispensable element of CRT: “The examination of race, sex, class, national origin, and sexual orientation, and how their combination (i.e., their intersections) plays out in various settings, e.g., how the needs of a Latina female are different from those of a black male and whose needs are the ones promoted.”

Such common elements, the A-B-C’s of Critical Race Theory, are present in CRT’s assault on American jurisprudence, sternly resisted by judges and lawyers who do not wish to throw into the trash bin of history the centuries old, organic development of both constitutional and statutory law, in favor of an emotion driven, post-Marxist jurisprudence that relies heavily on personal narration and history as edited by air-brushing CRT activists.

Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Richard Posner argued as far back as 1997 that critical race theory "turns its back on the Western tradition of rational inquiry, forswearing analysis for narrative…By repudiating reasoned argumentation, [critical race theorists] reinforce stereotypes about the intellectual capacities of nonwhites." And former Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Alex Kozinski lamented in the same year that critical race theorists had raised "insuperable barriers to mutual understanding" and thus eliminated fruitful opportunities for "meaningful dialogue.”

Like the rain that falls on the just and unjust, CRT is now trickling down in the education front, one of the most important of Gramsci’s cultural institutions; neither is the media an avoidable institutional cultural target for revolutionary change.

Samson has exposed himself to the usual contumely by waving warning flags over a partly conquered educational empire ruled more increasingly by state legislators, less and less by municipal school directors who will, despite entreaties, feel the bite of state interference in what used to be local political jurisdiction over their schools.  As expected, some uncomfortable pedagogues in education schools have been forced to insist that if they walk like CRT ducks, quack like CRT ducks, and swim in CRT ponds, they are not CRT ducks.

Parents in some communities who are suspicious of the transformative nature of a full bore CRT have voiced complaints. They have been marked as racists.

Still Samson slogs on, pointing out the supreme irony that precisely those lawmakers who most heatedly object to racism are now, wittingly or unwittingly, imposing upon municipal school systems a bill that forces once locally directed schools to adopt a race based notion straight out of the CRT playbook -- that the evils of discrimination once viciously directed at African Americans, Catholics, Hispanics, and women, can only be reversed through equally discrimination directed at “whites”, whatever “white” means.

White is a color, not a race. Black is a color, not a race. Brown, when used of Hispanics, Asians and others, is a color, not a race.  Members of the court, reporters in media, and pedagogues in schools, should be race blind, as recommended by Fredrick Douglas, Abraham Lincoln, Martin Luther King, and Rob Samson.


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Dave Walker, Turning Around The Misery Index

Dave Walker, who is running for Lieutenant Governor on the Republican Party ticket, is recognized by most credible political observers as perhaps the most over qualified candidate for Lieutenant Governor in state history. He is a member of the Accounting Hall of Fame and for ten years was the Comptroller General of the United States. When Mr. Walker talks about budgets, financing and pension viability, people listen. Mr. Walker is also attuned to fine nuances in political campaigning. He is not running for governor, he says, because he had moved to Connecticut only four years ago and wishes to respect the political pecking order. Very few people in the state think that, were he governor, Mr. Walker would know less about the finance side of government than his budget chief.

The Blumenthal Burisma Connection

Steve Hilton , a Fox News commentator who over the weekend had connected some Burisma corruption dots, had this to say about Connecticut U.S. Senator Dick Blumenthal’s association with the tangled knot of corruption in Ukraine: “We cross-referenced the Senate co-sponsors of Ed Markey's Ukraine gas bill with the list of Democrats whom Burisma lobbyist, David Leiter, routinely gave money to and found another one -- one of the most sanctimonious of them all, actually -- Sen. Richard Blumenthal."

Autocracy In Connecticut, The New Normal

Lamont Coronavirus, we have been told countless times, has knocked “government as we know it” into a cocked hat. Purely as a practical matter, we in Connecticut have no fully operative legislature or judiciary. This means that our usual three legged governmental stool – legislative, judicial and executive branches of government – is lacking two legs. Only the executive department, in the person of Governor Ned Lamont, is operating on all cylinders and at, some would say, excessive speed. A statute that gives the governor near plenipotentiary powers during emergencies, repurposed when Coronavirus slammed into Connecticut via communist China and Mayor Bill de Blasio’s New York City, has been operative in Connecticut for six months. A dominant Democrat legislature has recently extended the governor’s extraordinary powers yet another five months. This extension of powers, this sundering of the separation of powers, some believe, may be unconstitutional and, at the very least, raises