Many people have heard the phrase Critical Race Theory discussed in the news. Critical Race Theory is often taught as ‘anti-racism’ training, also sometimes under the name of ‘inclusivity training’ or ‘diversity consulting’.
If you Google the terms, you will find a lot of very unhelpful articles and videos that try to suggest that Critical Race Theory is a legitimate scientific and evidence-based framework developed by sociologists to understand how to end racism in America.
Yet, this is not what Critical Race Theory is and that is not what its goal is. I severely doubt the authenticity of anyone who would suggest such a thing. These people either do not know the origins of Critical Race Theory or are intentionally lying about them in order to deceive others about its authenticity as a science-based framework and that its goal is to end racism in America. It is actually the opposite; it is neither science nor evidence-based, and its champions do not want to end racism in America.
In this essay I will explain its actual origins, the purpose for why its core principles were developed and what its goals are. In doing so you will better understand the current political climate of America and our local communities where Critical race theory is being taught in the public school system.
Historical Context For the Formation of Critical Race Theory Ideologies
The passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 had been predicted to end the racial problems in America and yet this did not happen. In fact, poverty continued to rise among African-American communities and the pattern of small riots breaking out in cities continued even after the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and those in government did not understand why this was happening. For example, rates of African-American male unemployment and welfare enrollment, instead of running parallel as they always had, started to diverge in 1962, and the out-of-wedlock birthrate among African-Americans was 25 percent, much higher than that of Caucasians.
In an effort to form new solutions to the continuing problems, many investigations were conducted by the government; the first was by Daniel Patrick Moynihan, a sociologist who had been appointed Assistant Secretary of Labor by President Lyndon B. Johnson. This resulted in the report called The Negro Family: The Case For National Action, commonly known as the Moynihan Report. The report concluded that as a consequence of slavery having broken up families and the long-standing discrimination and violence against African-Americans in states that had Jim Crow laws, the African-American community had developed a toxic culture. He blamed this on the collapse of the nuclear family structure as a consequence of the aforementioned breakup of families during the period of slavery that led to a primarily matriarchal structure of African-American culture where children were often raised fatherless, and that this structure largely continued even after emancipation.
With this kind of breakdown of the nuclear family structure becoming considered normal amongst African-Americans, The Moynihan Report suggested that the implementation of welfare programs that were meant to supplement African-American family incomes was actually having the effect of discouraging both the pursuit of employment and marriage. Moynihan argued that without access to jobs and the means to contribute meaningful support to a family, African-American men would become systematically alienated from their roles as husbands and fathers, which would cause rates of divorce, child abandonment and out-of-wedlock births to skyrocket in the African-American community. The report suggested as a solution to mitigate this that new programs for jobs, vocational training, and educational programs be made available for the black community. These conclusions generated a great deal of controversy at the time, and had many critics from both feminists and social activists within the African-American community. Feminists specifically disliked the report because they viewed the nuclear family structure as regressive and they sought other explanations for the issues.
However, the report was influential on President Johnson’s administration’s war on poverty social policies, which implemented the programs of Medicaid and Medicare, in addition to making food stamps a permanent welfare program alongside enhancement of the Job Corps and increased funding of public education schools. Yet, the report was criticized widely for its claim that African-American culture was largely responsible for the issues and in his 1971 book Blaming the Victim, William Ryan coined the now widely used phrase to summarize what he thought Moynihan Report’s conclusions were. However, the economic policies of Johnson’s administration to create new jobs, provide vocational training and improve educational programs caused poverty rates to significantly drop and helped lead to the economic prosperity of the 1980s. That said, it took a good decade for this to become apparent, and in that decade other ideas sought to fight for dominance in the political sphere.
During the summer of 1967 major riots broke out in numerous cities across America such as Newark, Detroit, New York City, and Minneapolis. President Johnson commissioned Illinois Governor Otto Kerner Jr. to establish the National Advisory Commission on Civil Disorders to investigate this. The commission produced a report, which is often referred to as the Kerner Report. It blamed lack of economic opportunity, failed social service programs, police brutality, racism, and the white-oriented media.
A widely quoted passage from the report at the time was the following,
“Our nation is moving toward two societies, one black, one white—separate and unequal….What white Americans have never fully understood — but what the Negro can never forget — is that white society is deeply implicated in the ghetto. White institutions created it, white institutions maintain it, and white society condones it.”
This idea that “white institutions” are the root cause of the riots heavily influenced many social activists at the time, and they developed new ideas. One of them was Patricia Bidol, who utilized some of the language of the report to develop what became the basis for Critical Race Theory.
Patricia Bidol and the Creation of a Bad Idea Called Anti-Racism
Many people often cite Wikipedia’s article on Critical Race Theory when discussing its origins. What you won’t learn from Wikipedia’s article about Critical Race Theory is that it was not originally developed by sociologist or legal students, as the current version of the page would suggest; instead its ideas originate in the writings of a school superintendent named Patricia Bidol who wanted to fight racism against minorities by developing a framework to justify racism against European people, by redefining what ‘racism’ means using a number of fallacious arguments. Bidol’s work influenced other academics. The medium for Bidol’s influential ideas was the publishing of her 1970 book, Developing New Perspectives on Race: An Innovative Multi-media Social Studies Curriculum in Racism Awareness for the Secondary Level. The book is designed as a teaching manual for her theories on anti-racism training in the public school system.
In her book, Bidol introduced the idea that the term racism should be radically redefined from the popular meaning that racism is a form of prejudicial ideology against a certain ethnic group, to instead be defined to mean that racism is a system of privileges. Using a simplified version of the Frankfurt School critical theory (which is a Marxist framework to investigate power structures in a society), Bidol argued that because all racism is based on structural power and that only “white people” have structural power this means that only “white people” can be racist.
Patricia Bidol is also the originator of the phrase ‘Prejudice plus power’, often abbreviated as p+p=r, which is a definition Bidol developed to support her belief that racism requires racial prejudice and social power to codify and enforce this prejudice into a society. p+p=r was created by Bidol to convince other people of her belief that power is responsible for the creation of racial categories and that people favor their own racial groups over others.
Bidol’s beliefs are, of course, mistaken; she treats power as a zero-sum game in all cases and she does not account for the lack of uniformity of prejudicial attitudes even within ethnic groups and other kinds of subgroups. Bidol’s definition also requires an absolutist regime, which American society is not. Regardless of how marginalized a group may be in America they still are not powerless because power in America is organized into multiple levels with checks and balances on the limits of this power. We have elections for office, we have term limits, we have the court system that restricts the government and private groups, and people have the ability to participate in the drafting of law. Power is also divided heavily in America, between municipalities (and their subdivisions, such as school boards), counties, states and the federal branch, in addition to courts at multiple levels which can be used to contest decisions made by governments at any level. Power in America is democratic, not absolutist, and so Bidol’s claims are without merit. Consequently Bidol’s beliefs that ‘prejudice plus power equal racism’ are an example of a reduction fallacy, sometimes also known as a single cause fallacy — Bidol assumed there is a single and simple cause for racism when in reality it can be caused by any number of causes.
The most damning thing against Bidol’s theory is that it doesn’t explain why predominantly male Caucasian politicians drafted all of the legislation that ended slavery, and gave voting rights to women and minorities. It also doesn’t explain why these predominantly male Caucasian politicians drafted and voted for every major piece of civil rights legislation that has ever been implemented into law in America. It also does not explain why the vast majority of the voter base of predominantly “White” men that elected the other “White” male politicians who implemented all of these social reforms to states and federal governments voted for these politicians — according to Bidol’s framework they are all racists and so their actions would make no sense.
Why these supposedly racist people would do something so very non-racist is never explained by Bidol, nor any other person who has adopted Bidol’s ideas as they have evolved over time into Critical race theory.
Nevertheless, despite these obvious deficiencies in her theory, Bidol’s ideas became influential which is why we have to talk about them.
After publishing her first book, in 1973 Bidol co-authored another book called Racism and Education: An Action Manual. ( https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED073214 ). This book was distributed by the National Education Association to teachers across the country, and it is how this stuff originally spread.
The book begins with an preface from Bidol, who writes,
“If you are not part of the solution then you must be part of the problem. White educators, to whom this report is addressed, are part of the problem. For too long we, as whites, have failed to explore what it means to be white in a white racist society.”
So right from the beginning of the book, Bidol starts with the false dilemma fallacy, making the fallacious argument that if you do not support her beliefs as expressed in the book then you are part of the problem of racism in America. Throughout the book, Bidel frequently cites her previous book as justification for the claims that she makes in this new second book.
From page 9, we can clearly see she is continuing the radical redefinition of racism,
Bidol further writes,
“School systems reinforce White images and maintain the “rightness of whiteness” syndrome through curriculum materials. In very subtle ways white aspirations, norms and values are held out in textbooks; for example, at materials stressing the importance of eating three well balanced meals a day. The meals illustrated are white middle class meals, served as viewed appropriate by white standards and consisting of foods selected by whites as desirable. Black and Third World youngsters cannot identify with that image and can only regard their parents as failing them in some important way because they don’t serve those same foods”
This is a fallacious claim because the meals presented in textbooks are not recommended because they are “white”, but instead because the educational materials are seeking to educate children about healthy nutrition based on scientifically verified information about what the nutritional needs of a human are.
Nutrition does not change based on your skin color because all humans regardless of skin color have the exact same nutritional needs. To suggest otherwise, as Bidol does here, is to suggest that non-European people have radically different biological systems, which is an inherently racist idea.
In her efforts to claim that these textbooks are racist, Bidol herself demonstrates racist beliefs because she either does not understand the purpose of this nutritional information or she rejects it in favor of a racist belief that the nutritional needs of non-European people are different than those of European people.
“No one is suggesting that we get rid of Santa Clauses, white historical heroes, white myths or white fairy tales, for these are essential to the development of a healthy self-concept for white youth. What we must do, if we are to eliminate cultural racism, is to supply additional symbols, myths and heroes and holidays with which black and Third World youngsters can identify.”
This is yet another racist viewpoint expressed by Bidol that is based on the same flawed reasoning that led to different restrooms and drinking fountains for “colored” and “whites”. The idea that “whites” need their own cultural heroes and “blacks” need their own cultural heroes is a fundamentally racist proposition to make.
What we should actually be promoting is a Common Humanity approach; specifically to America, Common Humanity has been teaching people to not think of themselves strictly as ethnic groups but instead as a common shared identity as Americans. Critical race theorists instead distort this into a belief that shared American values are actually only “white values” and that non-whites have their own values and therefore should be taught differently than white people. Bidol therefore promotes a racist idea that encourages a “separate but equal” value system and therefore, racist policies.
In Bidol’s view, European people only had two options to choose from. In the section of her book titled, Becoming Anti-racist / Racists, she writes,
“As whites in a racist society we have only two behaviors to choose from vis-a-vis the issue of racism. We can choose to be racist/racists- who recognize the benefits accrued through being white and either consciously or unconsciously support institutional and cultural practices that perpetuate racism. Or we can choose to be anti-racist/racists — those who recognize the illegitimate privileges obtained by whiteness but strive to remove these institutionally and culturally racist beliefs even while still receiving them. There really is no in between.”
Bidol’s view was that no matter if you become an anti-racist or not, you will always be a racist if you have European descent. You are born a racist and you will always be a racist. This is what Critical race theory teaches our youth; that their “white” classmates will always be racist no matter what they do and that any “privileges” they have are not legitimately obtained because they are an inherent racist.
It is an objectively ridiculous assertion and fundamentally at odds with American values, the system of democracy and the simple fact that people do not become racists because of their skin colors.
How Judith Katz Ran With Bidol’s Bad Idea and Took it to its Logical Conclusion, ‘Diversity Consulting’
Judith Katz is another contributor to CRT. In 1978 she wrote White Awareness: A Handbook for Anti-Racism Training. This handbook introduces anti-racism theories of Bidol as a means for corporations to combat racism. The material in Katz’ book serves as the basis for all “consulting firms” in America that teach CRT under the label of ‘anti-racism training’. In fact, Katz’ primary occupation is in consulting firms that teach this so-called ‘training’. In reality, it is instruction in all of the ideas I just described that appear in Bidol’s work.
Katz opens her book with the words, “This book is, therefore, designed for white people. It is a means to help us break out of the oppressor role and take a step toward being more fully human.” and “Affirmative action efforts are being met with cries of “reverse discrimination”. Because of these conditions and the state of our society today, it is essential to focus on racism as it affects the oppressors namely, white people. This chapter will seek to establish the nature of racism as a White problem, describe its effects on Whites both psychologically and intellectually, and discuss the processes that are necessary to bring about change in the attitudes and behaviors of Whites.”
So, much like Bidol before her, Katz seeks to redefine racism to be something that cannot be done against “whites” and presents racists as something that only “white people” can be.
In the notes of the book to the facilitator ( that is, the person who the book is designed to guide to become an anti-racist trainer), Katz writes the following,
- Refer again to the definition of prejudice and differentiate it from racism. By the end of this exercise these two terms should have distinct meanings for the participants.
- It is important to push for the understanding that racism is prejudice plus power and that, therefore, Third World people cannot be racist against Whites in the United States. Third World people can be prejudiced against Whites, but clearly they do not have the power to enforce that prejudice. Although participants may not at this point totally accept this view or feel comfortable with it, it is important to establish the concept as a working definition. As the course progresses, it will, it is hoped, be better understood by participants.
Katz also writes this passage in her book, too.
“Despite all of the writings in the field, little has been published on racism as it affects Whites. Few strategies or materials have been designed to raise the consciousness of White people, to help them identify racism in themselves and others, or to develop skills to facilitate change in the White community.
In summary, racism is a White problem in that its development and perpetuation rest with White people. Whites created racism through the establishment of policies and practices that serve to their advantage and benefit and continue to oppress all minorities in the United States. Racism is perpetuated by Whites through their conscious and/or unconscious support of culture and institutions that are founded on racist policies and practices. The racial prejudices of White People coupled with the economic, political and social power to enforce discriminatory practices on every level of life, cultural, institutional and individual is the gestalt of White racism. Therefore, the “race problem” in America is essentially a “White problem in that it is Whites who developed it, perpetuate it and have the power to resolve it.
Several authors have probed the disease more deeply. Wendell Berry (1970), a White, describes racism as a disease with which he has been afflicted from birth and from which, though he is trying to overcome it, he suffers every day.
Racism has been diagnosed as a form of schizophrenia in that there is a large gap between what Whites believe and what they actually practice, which causes them to live in a state of psychological stress.
All of these analyses clearly indicate that racism is a critical and pervasive form of mental illness”
Yes, you have read correctly; Katz and other critical race theorists describe racism as a disease that only Whites can be afflicted with and which all White people are afflicted by.
This is clearly a pseudo-scientific claim not based on any actual research that could possibly meet the standards of the scientific method. Yet this is what is taught to children by critical race theorists.
Some people will often point out that “Whites” is not an actual ethnic group. Katz responded to this criticism in her book, thus;
“Because United States culture is centered around White norms, White people rarely have to come to terms with that part of their identity. Ask a White person his or her race, and you may get the response, “Italian”, “Jewish”, “Irish”, “English” and so on. White people do not see themselves as White. This is a way of denying responsibility for perpetuating the racist system and being part of the problem. By seeing oneself solely as an individual, one can disown one’s racism.”
Katz here has made a contradictory claim; the central premise of her argument is that White people are some kind of cabal that systematically oppress other minority groups because of a shared cultural identity, and yet here she recognizes that “White people do not see themselves as White”. This is contradictory and fallacious reasoning, and no evidence is provided to resolve this discrepancy. Instead, Katz simply claims these people are racist anyway with no logical reason provided for why Katz’ claims should be believed.
Worse, this rabbit hole of irrationality leads Katz to reject the Common Humanity approach to ethnic relations and embracement of a common shared American identity that was advocated for by Martin Luther King, Jr. and other influential members of the civil rights movement in the 1960s. The efforts and sacrifices of people like Martin Luther King, Jr. are actually undermined by the social activists like Katz and others who advocate for the ‘anti-racism’ framework she proposes here.
Katz and critical race theorists who utilize her work reject the idea that people can be individuals who should find commonality between themselves and others; instead, she reiterates that all White people are racist just because they are White, which is a circular reasoning fallacy based on her special definition of what “White” and “Racism” mean to her; a definition that, by her own acknowledgement, is not widely supported by others.
Katz and Bidol is a classical case of the fallacy of motivated reasoning, which is a phenomenon where emotional biased reasoning is used to produce justifications for decisions that are desired by the person, rather than those decisions that accurately reflect the evidence. It is a kind of fallacious reasoning that seeks to reduce the cognitive dissonance caused by holding contradictory ideas between the evidence and the desired actions by adopting a confirmation bias. That is, motivated reasoning is a case where a person has decided that arguments in favor of their preexisting beliefs are better than arguments based on actual evidence that reaches a conclusion that is not favorable to those pre-existing beliefs the person has.
Because Katz and Bidol believe that all European descended people are racist, they ignore any and all evidence that contradicts this viewpoint and instead seek to re-define the pre-existing definition of words, such as ‘racism’ and ‘prejudice’, mental illness’, ‘nutrition’ and ‘shared American values’ to support their conclusions. Racism becomes redefined to instead be something that only White people can do, that racism is now a mental illness akin to schizophrenia rather than just a delusional way of thinking, that teaching children ‘nutrition’ is white supremacy and that ‘shared American values’ are actually only ‘White people values’ and that black people should have their own values and cultural heroes.
In actuality, in-group and out-group perceptions is an instinctive trait of humans and all humans must learn to not give in to these baser instincts. This is what the Common Humanity approach sought to achieve.
The problem with constructing an argument based upon a radical and unsupported by evidence redefinition of a term is that it’s not consistent with the facts that led to the definition for that term. For example, how would you as a Christian like it if one group of Christians decided that all other Christians are not Christians and only they themselves are the ‘true Christians’? What if we decided to say that only Native peoples are “true Americans” and everyone else has to leave the country? What if someone decided to say that only Republicans get to call themselves a Patriot and everyone else is not allowed to be a Patriot? These kinds of divisive arguments are often made, and are fallacious; specifically an appeal to purity fallacy, which is sometimes also called the No True Scotsman fallacy. It is a situation where someone attempts to protect their universal generalization from a counter-example that would disprove their claim by rejecting any counter-example for no valid reason. This rejection is usually in the form of making a slight adjustment to the generalization using an emotional reasoning argument that is produced ad hoc to definitionally exclude the counter-example that is damning to their generalization claim. It’s called a purity fallacy because it uses the idea of something being “real”, “genuine” or “authentic”. These redefinitions of racism used by the anti-racist are an example of this fallacy because their definition requires you to believe that real racism is something only “White people” can do and that others cannot. Thus, it is an obvious example of an appeal to purity fallacy.
Of course they don’t like to be reminded of this, which is why the anti-racist rejects logic and science in the first place.
In the section of Katz’ book marked, How to use this program, Katz writes,
“The overall objective of the program are to help Whites become aware of how racism affects their lives and to help them change their racist attitudes and behaviors. The program strives to help Whites understand that racism in the United States is a white problem and that being white implies being racist.”
Katz also writes,
“…Unlike many racism awareness programs this program is not designed to produce guilt or to confront people in a way that “puts them down”.
Which is a blatantly misleading statement for an author who claims that all European descended people are born with a form of schizophrenia called racism, and who then goes on to write,
“The following assumptions for the basis of this training program:
Racism is a predominantly White problem. Therefore, being White in America implies being racist. White people are responsible for the perpetuation of White racism in a White racist system. “
The last stage of the indoctrination process into her ideology is described by Katz as such,
“In this last stage one clear objective must be met if the training program is to be successful. Participants must leave it willing and ready to take action against racism. This phase is called “becoming an anti-racist racist”.
An anti-racist racist is a White person who understands his or her racism, understands that, given the dynamics of racism in the United States today, he or she will always be racist, but takes actions to try to combat it in situations where he or she has some power. In other words, an anti-racist racist is one who takes action to try to solve the White problem. The most important point of this training program is that inaction is racism.”
Again, Katz is reiterating that it is impossible for any European descended person to not be a racist because they are born a racist, and that the best morally correct option for any European descended person who wishes to combat racism is to become a social justice warrior who spreads Katz’ ideology to more people – -but even in doing this, they will still be a racist.
“We Whites must not only understand our racism, how it developed and how it operates in our society and in our personal lives, but do something with that knowledge that will effect some change in our racist system. That is the essence of the last stage and the purpose of the entire training program”.
Judith Katz later wrote an article titled The Challenge of Diversity for the publication Valuing diversity on campus: A multicultural approach, which was distributed by Association of College Unions-International in 1989. You can read a PDF copy of this essay from the University of Michigan public library.
In this article Katz wrote,
“White culture results from a synthesis of ideas, values and beliefs inherited from European ethnic groups in the United States. As the dominant one, White culture acts as the foundation of our organizations and social institutions by dictating its norms…..
….By understanding White culture, one can begin to see how it has become the basis for institutional norms, and yet people of color are expected to feel valued by and comfortable within these systems. US institutions need to consider how their systems would operate if White culture were not the only legitimate one.
Table 1 outlines the basic elements of White culture.
Individual is primary unit
Individual has primary responsibility
Independence and autonomy highly valued and rewarded
Individual can control environment.
Winning is everything
Must master and control nature
Must always do something about a situation
Pragmatic/utilitarian view of life
Protestant Work Ethic:
Working hard brings success.
Progress and Future Orientation
Plan for future
Value continual improvement and education
Emphasis on Scientific Method
Objective, rational, linear thinking
Cause and effect relationships
Status and Power
Measured by economic possessions
Nuclear family is the ideal social unit
Man is breadwinner and the head of his household.
Woman is homemaker and subordinate to the husband
Direct eye contact
Limited physical contact
Adherence to rigid time schedule.
Time is viewed as a commodity
Based on Christian religion.
Based on White history and male leaders.
Based on European immigrants experience in the United States
Music and art based on European cultures
Woman’s beauty based on blonde, blue-eyed, thin and young
Men’s attractiveness based on athletic ability, power and economic status.
Belief in Christianity
No tolerance for deviations from single god concept.
So, here Katz has made the absurd claims that believing that the following things are racist “White” people things.
….Hard work brings success, is a racist idea.
….believing in the scientific method is a racist idea.
…believing in logic is a racist idea.
…planning for the future is a racist idea.
….valuing continual improvement and education is a racist idea.
…believing yourself to be an individual with your own thoughts, feelings and beliefs is a racist idea.
And Katz also believes many other valuable things like heterosexual marriages, holidays, learning to speak English and showing up for work on time, are racist, too. You’ll also notice that some of what is labeled as “racist white culture” are things that feminists dislike, such as the nuclear family structure. This is not a coincidence because Judith Katz, much like Patricia Bidol before her, is a feminist activist, too. There is overlapping between the anti-racism and feminist ideologies because they were developed by people that had overlaps of these ideologies. They are frequently taught side-by-side in academia.
Of course, what Katz has listed in her table are not actually racist ideas. What they actually are, (aside from perhaps Christianity) are the shared American values which have a positive and civilizing influence on our society and the people within our society, as these are the values which allow a person to rise above their station and improve their social class regardless of their ethnicity. They are qualities that are necessary for a prosperous and functional democracy which seeks to unite all of the ethnic tribes of humankind into one nation, and one people. This is why they are American values and they do not belong expressly to any particular ethnic group in this country; these values belong to all of us. .
So, here once again Katz has repeated the mistake of suggesting that American culture is inherently only “white culture”, when American culture is actually a shared culture built around the humanism and liberalism ideas of the Age of Enlightenment philosophers, and this American identity led to the abolitionist movement and the end of slavery in America. Without these shared American cultural values this would never have occurred.
It is important to stress that by labeling these things as exclusively White culture, Katz makes the argument that none of these qualities are the qualities that should be taught to anyone who is not “white”. So Katz is suggesting that non-Whites should not have to learn how to work hard, how to speak English, how to employ the scientific method, how to plan for their futures, to value continual self-improvement and education, and to believe themselves to be a unique individual with their own thoughts, feelings and beliefs. This is undeniably a racist thing Katz is suggesting here.
The re-framing of the scientific method as a racist idea comes up multiple times in Katz’ writings. For example, she writes,
“Our educational system expresses White cultural norms by valuing standard English and the written tradition. Rarely are students graded on their ability to use oral communication as a way of demonstrating their learning. White culture also emphasizes the scientific method, which focuses attention on quantitative research.”
This statement should horrify any American living today, especially given the events that are happening in our society right now in regards to environmentalism and the pandemic.
Trap 3: Perceptions don’t count — or date, data and more data.
Managers can also impede the development of a multi-cultural system by repeatedly requesting data about the problem. To avoid taking action for change, an official asks for more research to prove a problem exists. This reliance on data obscures the pain that people actually experience as a result of discrimination. Aspers and Waterman (1982) point out, perceptions are real and need to be taken as such. Colleges and universities are particularly prone to falling into this trap because they routinely rely on quantitative research as a way to “prove” reality.”
So, because the scientific method is inconvenient for Katz and the other social justice warriors who believe in critical race theory and they cannot prove their claims using the scientific method, Katz suggests that feelings are more important than facts.
Critical race theory is not based on science. I stress again; critical race theory is not based on science. It is antagonistic to the scientific method and they have engaged in pseudoscience when they claim that their beliefs are supported by “research” because they don’t believe in the scientific method at all, because they have decided it is racist and therefore wrong.
It’s not. All of the greatest medical and technological achievements of the past two hundred years are a result of employing the scientific method to cure disease, to lift people from poverty, to save humankind from its darkest of qualities. Katz’ perspective is objectively wrong and outright dangerous to encourage in young minds, because it leads them to reject reality.
By suggesting that American culture and science is exclusively White culture, Katz and her followers promote the idea that each ethnic group should have their own unique ethnic culture that is seperate from all other cultures, which only is meant for them and them alone, and that no shared common identity exists. Katz has therefore made a blatantly false and inherently racist claim.
Katz finishes this section by writing thus,
“Trap 5: Let’s not upset anyone
Cries of “reverse discrimination” often hamper institutional efforts. Such outbursts are actually positive signs that the system and the rules are shifting. When people of color and women are upset in an organization, few people seem concerned; when White men begin to feel that changes are occurring, the movement often stops. To avoid this trap, the significant people must recognize cries of reverse discrimination as positive signs and be prepared to help threatened individuals understand how the system is changing and how they can adapt to the new rules.”
So here Katz explains her motivation for why she has decided to redefine racism to be something that only White people can do and why it cannot be done by any other ethnic group. Katz has redefined these terms this way because she doesn’t want people to be able to claim that racism against European descended people is legitimate because she feels it is “positive sign” of social change. This also conveniently requires a person to abandon the employment of logic and the scientific method to adopt this kind of skewered perception based entirely in motivated reasoning, which as I explained earlier is an emotional reasoning that rejects evidence that is inconvenient for the pre-existing beliefs the person already has.
I should mention here that these ideas form the basis of Critical race theory. You will find versions of Katz and Bidol’s writings appearing in every so-called “anti racist curriculum” that is taught by “diversity consultants”, sometimes also under the moniker of “inclusion training”. None of it is based in science and all of it is built on fallacious reasonings to justify another version of racism and discrimination. It was created decades ago by a fringe group of social activists for the sole purpose of winning an ideological argument by rejecting all evidence against their claims by calling these counter-arguments as “racist”. This is exactly what these “anti-racist” people continue to do in present day. They don’t use logic or science or facts, they just re-frame everything so that anyone who thinks differently than themselves is a racist.
How Anti-Racism Wormed Its Way Into Sociology
Now these frameworks developed by feminist anti-racist activists like Katz and Bidol made their way into sociology and is now taught as critical race theory. Katz and Bidol’s writings were combined with the Frankfurt Institute critical theory framework (an inherently Marxist framework that uses historical materialism ).
In his book Portraits of White Racism (1977), David Wellman wrote,
“This book is about white racism. Unlike most books on the subject, however, it is not about prejudice. For reasons that I make clear in the second chapter, I find that concept troublesome: it does not adequately explain the pervasiveness and subtlety of racist beliefs in American life. Thus, instead of assuming that racist sentiments are expressed as prejudice, I explore an alternative: Racism means culturally sanctioned beliefs which, regardless of the intentions involved, defend the advantages whites have because of the subordinated position of racial minorities. Viewed through these lenses, racism need not be restricted to the obvious hostilities expressed by bigots, nor found solely among the ranks of lower–and working-class people. It is seen to be more pervasive, existing throughout the American class structure.”
We can clearly see that Wellman has been influenced by the writings of Bidol at this point, as he has taken on Bidol’s position to redefine what racism and prejudice mean in order to support his arguments.
“Traditional instruments used by sociologists in large-scale surveys are not yet sensitive to these manifestations of racism. The structured questions asked in highly systematic research designs also assume a great deal of knowledge about the subject before the questions are posed. Since we know relatively little about that face of racism that I am exploring, traditional sociological methodologies are not much help; in fact, they probably get in the way of understanding.
Thus my research departs from orthodox procedures.
…The arguments made in this book are not based on “statistical proof: I do not pretend to measure how widespread the racism I am analyzing is, nor do I assess the quarters in which it is the most prominent. The purpose of this book is not to show how racism is distributed throughout the population. In fact, since the data were not collected in a random sample, that is not possible. Thus, I have neither the basis nor the reason to use statistical evidence. What this book does provide are the tools and the perspective with which to see racism in sentiments that are usually considered nonracist. That is possible with the data at hand.”
What Wellman has written here sounds very similar to what Judith Katz said about how using evidence and the scientific method is inconvenient for proving this re-definition of racism and prejudice, doesn’t it?
Wellman has, like Katz before him, argued that racism is some special type of thing that normal methods of scientific inquiry cannot be applied to and therefore they “get in the way of understanding”. This is a special pleading fallacy where Wellman has dismissed the use of the scientific method because it is inconvenient for his claims and as such, yet another situation of motivated reasoning, just like Katz before him. Worse, Wellman here is claiming that somehow his research is still sociological even though he admits to not using any of the standards used by other sociologists in his field. Instead, his evidence is based on a couple of interviews with people he conducted while he was a student at college.
Wellman later re-released the book in 1992, which is the most widely available version of the book. This new version includes a new preface where Wellman admits that mainstream sociologists have not adopted his definition of racism and prejudice and his ideas were not well received, and yet he still argues that his ideas really were right all along, even though he admitted to not using the scientific method to reach his conclusions. So because Wellman’s work was not scientific, there is no rational reason why anyone should adopt his perspective as the mainstream viewpoint on the subject. Wellman of course does not see it this way, thus this preface to the 2nd edition of his book, where he now claims racism is an essential part of American life and cannot be ignored.
On page 24 of the new introduction, Wellman writes,
“Thus, because race still counts, and resources are finite, the relationship between black and white Americans remains very much the zero-sum arrangement it was 15 years ago when the first edition of this book was published…..
…The arithmetic is simple: As blacks gain chances, whites lose certainty (1998:178).”
Again, Wellman, much like his predecessors, presents the socio-political situation in America as a zero-sum game when it is objectively not, and he makes the fallacious claim that because some social problems still exist in America, that must mean that racism is still a huge problem. This is because Wellman believes all social problems are due to racism.
This is circular reasoning, and it is what Critical Race Theory relies heavily upon.
It’s not based on facts, data or anything that can be regarded as logically consistent.
It is based entirely on feelings over facts.
This is how Critical Race Theory became formed.
“How sociologists define a problem is directly related to the conclusions they reach. If the attitudinal dimension of racism is defined as explicitly racial, hostile and inaccurate — that is what will be found.”
Here Wellman argues that changing the definition of racism will change the conclusions people reach about racism. This is why I frequently point out that Critical Race Theory relies heavily on narrative construction, rather than genuine scientific inquiry and facts. They change the definition of words to suit their arguments.
Wellman then goes on to cite an example of white racism in society by discussing an event occurring in 1968 in New York City where teachers went on strike when “white teachers” were fired by a school board controlled by African-American elected officials, and this school board replaced the fired “white” teachers with “black” teachers. Wellman presents the event as an example of White supremacy where “White teachers” sought to prevent the hiring of “black teachers” , when in fact, the strike was because all of the teachers who were fired by the African-American dominated school board were Jewish and the firings violated the teachers’ union contracts. Wellman also ignored that, as widely reported in the news of the time, the school board in question was also accused by the teacher’s union of having introduced black separatism ideologies into the public schools. During the protests, on December 26, 1968, Julius Lester on WNBAi radio interviewed Leslie Campbell, a history teacher at one of the schools in question, who read a poem on air entitled, ‘Anti-Semitism: Dedicated to Albert Shanker” — Albert Shanker being the president of the teacher’s union at the time and who was also Jewish. The poem read, “Hey, Jewboy, with that yarmulke on your head, You pale-faced Jew boy, I wish you were dead.” The poem then went on to say that the author is sick of hearing about the Holocaust because it only happened for 15 years and it paled in comparison to the 400 years that Africans had been suffering from slavery.
These facts about the 1968 teacher’s union strike in New York are inconvenient for Wellman, who like other anti-racists do not view Jewish people as being victims of racism (anti-Semitism) when they have European ancestry, and so Wellman distorts the event to present it as an example of White racists practicing white solidarity and becoming angry when the status quo changes.
This is why Wellman and his research is not a credible source of information about sociological research into the topic of racism. He intentionally misrepresents information that does not suit his narrative.
In his 2nd edition of the book, Wellman writes in the section marked, ‘Toward an Alternative Perspective’,
“There is another approach to white racism. If we view it as a culturally sanctioned, rational response to struggles over scarce resources, we can account for its widespread character and avoid the inconsistencies and meaningless distinctions that arise when it is viewed as prejudice.“
Basically, Wellman is labeling any counter-claims to his argument that points out his perspective has ‘inconsistencies’ as a ‘meaningless distinction’ — he lumps them together intentionally — because they are inconvenient for his argument. This allows him to justify everything as racist and rooted in racism without having to address these inconsistencies.
“The analogy of a zero-sum game is appropriate. For blacks to gain may mean whites will lose. White people thus have an interest in maintaining their position of racial advantage. The issues that divide black and white people, then, are grounded in real and material conditions. The justifications for this division, moreover, have an element of rationality to them.“
Wellman has again claimed that American socio-political and economic landscape is a zero-sum game, when it is objectively not for the reasons I explained previously in this essay. He then declares that because of this zero-sum game, there will be no social gain by “blacks” that does not disadvantage “whites”.
Wellman also introduces the idea that privilege is the central aspect of racism in America.
“…racism extends considerably beyond prejudiced beliefs. The essential feature of racism is not hostility or misperception but rather the defense of a system from which advantage is derived on the basis of race. The manner in which the defense is articulated — either with hostility or subtlety — is not nearly as important as the fact that it ensures the continuation of a privileged relationship. Thus it is necessary to broaden the definition of racism beyond prejudice to include sentiments that in their consequence, if not their intent, support the racial status quo.”
Wellman argues that the definition of racism must broaden so that he can justify his belief that racism is still a widespread problem; yet another circular reasoning argument. He then claims that part of this new definition of racism is any action to protect the systems in which a person may gain advantages. This is probably why he dismisses the anti-Semitism that sparked the 1968 New York Teacher’s Union Strike, as Wellman’s crazy interpretation of the event led him to conclude it was merely a case pf White people trying to protect their systems of advantage from being removed.
This is yet another example of the dangers of the philosophy of Critical race theory and how it teaches people to think about events in society in a way that is both unhelpful and inaccurate.
What these anti-racists don’t seek to do is promote the Common Humanity idea that group solidarity based largely on ethnic tribal affiliations should be abandoned and that people should instead find solidarity as Americans with shared cultural values. What they instead promote is the division they see to already exist and believe cannot be eradicated. And their motivation to view the world this way is solely because they wish to win an ideological debate. They don’t care about truth, they only care about feeling like they have won the argument.
Enough about Wellman.
How Anti-Racism Gained the Label of Critical Race Theory to Make Itself Sound Legitimate
The anti-racism ideas of Bidol, Katz and Wellman were mixed together with the pre-existing ideas of black supremacy / separatism advocated for by the Nation of Islam and the critical theory of the Frankfurt Institute –critical theory being a Marxist framework that claims social problems are caused by social structures and was developed by mixing the ideas of both Sigmund Fraud and Karl Marx together. However, the bulk of the arguments made by critical race theorists are what I have described in detail in this essay, and it is merely the language of critical theory that has been utilized to express these ideas and give it a sense of legitimacy.
This mixing of these various ideas by social activists took place during the 1980s and 90s largely within the academic fields of legal studies, strangely enough, as predominantly black law students sought ideologies that supported their pre-existing racist beliefs against Europeans. The most notable individual within this movement in the law schools was Derrick Bell, an African-American law professor at Harvard; whose teaching at his station deeply influenced many other law students who then became professors themselves at other law schools, and that helped spread the ideas within the legal community, as well as other groups ancillary to the social activist community, such as the NAACP, Southern Law Poverty Center and numerous other social activist non-profits that seek to force social change using lawsuits. Much like the original arguments made by Bidol, Katz and Wellman, they rejected mainstream approaches that utilized logic and science, and instead have developed a framework based on what they feel to be true rather than what is actually true.
By 1989, the term ‘critical race theory’ had already been established. The term was advocated for Kimberlé Crenshaw, who is often regarded as the primary mixer of these ideologies. Crenshaw is also known as the originator, or at least one of the earliest advocates for, the intersectionality feminist framework that is frequently used in gender studies courses today, and which utilizes much of the pseudo-scientific beliefs of John Money — famously kicked out of John Hopkins for having conducted unethical experiments on two boys to force one of them to behave like a girl and engage in masturbation with his brother while Money photographed the boys– who invented the term ‘gender identity’ and lied about his research in his books, claiming that his experiments were voluntary when they were actually involuntary, and that the subjects accepted their new sexual identities when they actually had rejected them. In fact, the main subjects of Money’s research, David Reimer and his brother Brian Reimer, would both commit suicide after struggling for years with depression as a result of Money’s experiments on the two boys (Gaetano, Phil, “David Reimer and John Money Gender Reassignment Controversy: The John/Joan Case”. Embryo Project Encyclopedia (2017-11-15). ISSN: 1940-5030 http://embryo.asu.edu/handle/10776/13009).
In 1995 Kimberlé Crenshaw published Critical Race Theory: The Key Writings That Influenced the Movement. The book presents Derrick Bell’s 1975 essay, Serving Two Masters: Integration Ideals and Client Interests in Desegregation Litigation as the first essay to constitute the CRT movement. Neither Bidol nor Katz are mentioned. However, as you should now realize after having come this far in my essay, Derrick Bell did not invent the core ideas of Critical Race Theory. He, like others, adopted Bidol’s ideas and his later essays are influenced by them. In fact, if you truly wish to know what Bell thought of “white people” and American society, you need only read his fictional short stories, such as the 1992 short “The Space Traders“. In the tale, present day “white people” sell all of Earth’s “black people” to space aliens. The book is quite absurd, and known to be anti-Semitic, as Bell portrays Jewish people as only opposing the trade so that they will not regarded as the lowest social class ethnic group.
Reading Bell’s essays, his influence from Bidol and Katz are obvious, as the ideas they express do not have any prior history. Tragically, the ideas of Bidol and Katz gained credibility due to the social status of Bell and other professors who adopted and promoted them.
Now flash forward to present day, where the National Museum of African American History and Culture, a division of the Smithsonian, created and posted this chart onto their website.
This infographic has since been removed because it got the attention of some politicians who protested it, but the rest of the article content remains.
( The Internet Archive still has caches of the page from when it had the infographic on it, for anyone who doubts that the page did in fact have this infographic, and this news article from New York magazine also discusses the infographic on the website, too)
Earlier in this essay I mentioned Judith Katz’s essay The Challenge of Diversity where she created a table that listed all of the elements of ‘white culture. For a refresher, you can download a PDF of it from the University of Michigan Library at this link.
Look at the above infographic chart posted to the National Museum of African American History and Culture website, and then look at page 13 and 14 of Katz essay. Note how the infographic chart is almost word for word the same table as the one Katz created.
This is not a coincidence. It’s intentional. These social activists have infiltrated and hijacked our academic institutions, and are using their positions to rewrite American history so it will be viewed through their distorted lens.
If you take the time to read the chart, you will see they listed the scientific method as part of ‘white culture’, which they defined as objective, rational thinking, cause and effect relationships, quantitative emphasis. This is again a re-iteration of their belief that the scientific method cannot investigate racism, which is a belief they formed because they wanted to redefine what ‘evidence’ means so they can rely 100% on personal anecdotes and stories as ‘evidence’ for their beliefs; basically, feelings over facts.
This is also why there is no actual evidence per the bare minimum standards used in sociology for the assertions made by CRT activists; they reject the scientific method as ‘white supremacy’ and view it as a system designed to only empower ‘white people’. So, when someone tells you the people who author these CRT and anti-racism books are ‘experts’ because they might have a college degree, you should understand their degree did not require them to use the scientific method to complete their thesis. As such, their degrees are not even worth the paper they were printed on. They are not experts and their education is worthless, because they rejected the scientific method and instead their education relied entirely on fallacious reasonings.
And now these people are in our schools, teaching this nonsense to the kids. Teaching kids this stuff is probably a form of child abuse, it’s literally doing the opposite of what the schools are supposed to be doing.
The Rise of Black Lives Matter and Antifa as Champions of Critical Race Theory
So, these two most destructive populist ideologies in America today — critical race theory and gender identity theory — have Kimberlé Crenshaw in common with them as a cheerleader for them, and it is why Black Lives Matter, an incorporated non-profit organization that was founded by three African-American lesbian women; Patrisse Cullors, Alicia Garza, and Opal Tometi, who all are big fans of Kimberlé Crenshaw, advocates for both Critical Race Theory and these fringe pseudo-scientific gender identity beliefs that attack the nuclear family and heterosexuality as examples of “White supremacy”.
It’s not a coincidence. It’s intentional.
In the August 15th 2018 news article from The Grio, Patrisse Cullors expands activism into classroom, Cullors is noted as teaching Critical Race Theory as a college professor
Now let’s talk about flags.
The Trans-racial pride flag version was developed specifically to support the Black Lives Matter organization who advocates for these two ideologies. It’s called the ‘trans-racial pride flag’ because the main racial part is African-American women. That is something not often spoken out loud but it is what they actually intend. Let me explain.
The redesign of the pride flag into the trans-racial pride flag was created in 2018 by Daniel Quasar, a Portland, Oregon based social activist involved with antifa and BLM, who added the trans-flag colors and black and brown stripes to the existing pride flag design As Quaser explains on the Kickstarter campaign he launched when he introduced the new design and sought to mass produce these flags, his goal was to add “marginalized communities” to the flag. The browns and flag stripes are meant to include the BAME (black and minority ethnic) movement or People of Color (PoC), which is what Black Lives Matter is part of. BAME is anti-nuclear family and heavily intertwined with the gay rights movement as a promoter of CRT / anti-racism theories.
Contrary to assumptions, the white color part of the trans part of the flag does not represent Caucasian people either; instead it represents non-binary people who don’t consider themselves any gender. There is no representation for Caucasian people in this new version of the flag, because per critical race theory ideology, Whites cannot be marginalized.
This belief is totally inconsistent with logical organized thought of course, because “White people” can be gay too, but this is usually dismissed by suggesting that “White people” who are heterosexual really are the ones with all the power. Yet, this is contradictory to their reasoning for why they felt they needed to add black and brown stripes to the flag? If gay Whites don’t specifically need to be represented in the flag, why then do gay Blacks and Browns need to specifically be represented in the flag? That doesn’t logically make any sense and that is the point, because we’re not dealing with people who are utilizing a logical framework for their ideology. CRT is rooted in the writings of Patricia Bidol and Judith Katz who specifically rejected the usage of logic as a racist idea and instead said that things are real because we feel them to be real.
So, the CRT activists went to marginalized groups such as the gay community and they said, we have a framework that explains why you are marginalized and they taught it to them, using terms like “exclusion” and “inclusion” but that have radically different definitions for these words, just like they had changed the definitions of “racism” to mean something different.
This is made clear by simply reading the Black Lives Matter website from its launch. As snapshotted by the Wayback Machine Internet Archive, the original incarnation of the BLM website includes in its mission statement language criticizing the ‘hetero-patriarchal society’,
Later versions of the BLM website made it more clear how BLM is not a movement for heterosexual African-Americans who believe in the nuclear family structure, such as this version from December 2019,
These phrases make it clear that despite claiming that they want to make America a better place for all African-Americans, they do not actually mean it. It is impossible to represent the viewpoints of all African-Americans while simultaneously declaring they want to disrupt heterosexuals nuclear family structure, as the majority of African-Americans are heterosexual and desire to have a nuclear family structure.
Furthermore, BLM supports abortions; as their recent activities show, BLM is raising money for abortion centers,
“Abortion care is healthcare”.
I find it ironic that an organization that claims all “Black” lives matter is funneling money to abortion clinics that encourage “Black” mothers to kill “Black” fetuses. They clearly do not intend their organization name to be taken literally, and that is the point that Americans must understand — names and slogans are meaningless. What matters is actual actions.
What Americans who do not pay attention to politics must come to understand is that in the present day socio-political landscape in America, the trans-racial pride flag does not represent inclusivity as is frequently claimed; it actually represents exclusivity. That is why only certain groups are represented by the flag and others are excluded by it. This in contrast to the American flag, which is genuinely inclusive because it represents everyone in America. The pride flag, and by extension, the Black Lives Matter and antifa flags, are exclusive in their representation. When the champions for these flags claim they are “inclusive” they are not using the word inclusive the way that everyone else does; just as with ‘racism’, they change the definition of words to win their ideological arguments and they do so in a way that is incoherent and irrational, based only on fallacious motivated reasoning. You see, they believe “inclusion” is something that can only be done for people who are marginalized and anyone else whom they believe is benefited by these systems of power does not need to be included because the point of their “inclusion” is to topple these systems of power.
What many Americans struggle to understand when looking at the talking points of these movements is that we are dealing with large groups of people who change the meaning of terms to suit their arguments and that is why they have appropriated terms like “diversity” and “inclusion” to mean radically different things than what everybody else thinks these words mean: to the activists, these words mean removing “White” heterosexuals from positions of privilege and power. It is very sneaky because it has allowed them to gain allies from people who do not fully understand the ideology behind these flags and what they truly represent — which is exclusion — and what the motivations of these people are. They don’t want inclusion. They want to exclude others who they believe have obtained privilege unjustly and that they need to fight these unjust systems of privilege by dismantling them so that the people who are benefited by these systems lose those benefits.
These people do not advocate for the Common Humanity approach to race, gender and sexuality, as the majority of Americans do. They instead advocate for a Common Enemy one, and twist the meaning of the words to win their ideological debates.
The Black Lives Matter movement is intertwined with the gay rights movement and always has been, because the people who created Black Lives Matter were part of that movement before they made Black Lives Matter. It has now become the dominant force in the gay rights movement in the USA. As for antifa, which stands for anti-fascists but is actually a Marxist organization that also advocates critical race theory under the label of “anti-racism”. This is not a coincidence either, as Andy Ngo, (a Vietnamese–American who has spent a decade documenting the two organizations by attending their rallies and investigating their connections, which you can read in full detail in his book, Unmasked: Inside Antifa’s Radical Plan to Destroy Democracy) notes they are heavily intertwined movements.
Antifa is not a splinter organization in the USA but is actually part of the Black Lives Matter movement. The same people who are participating in BLM rallies also participate in the antifa rallies. This is why the pride flags, the BLM flags and the antifa flags all show up at the same rallies. They are often claimed incorrectly by many sympathetic media outlets to be “leaderless” and “have no organization” but the reality is that their chapters are incorporated, they do have officers of these organizations, they do collect money and have bank accounts, and teams of lawyers, which is why they have bail funds to get their members released when they are jailed for viciously attacking people and destroying property. None of this is possible without organization and leadership structure. They utilize technology tools like mailing lists, social media profiles and SMS alerts to cell phones to mobilize their members to donate money to funds, purchase the books of the leaders of the movement and buy their merchandise to wear at rallies they organize for the members to show up at. It’s coordinated and intentional.
The Bad Ideas Are Now Widespread in the Public Education System in America
The indoctrination of these radical anti-American ideologies and their intertwining with the gay rights movement has been very successful. This ideology is now being taught in our public school classrooms because the college students who learn this stuff from their professors go on to teach in the public school systems, introducing their radical ideologies under the misleading title of “diversity training”. A few days ago, a California public school teacher at Newport Mesa Schools named Kristin Pitzen was fired after having posted TikTok videos to her account where she bragged about having removed the American flag from her classroom and instead suggested that her students recite the pledge of allegiance to the trans-racial pride flag she had hanged up in her classroom. She said that the American flag made her “uncomfortable”.
Another teacher in San Francisco, who has changed her legal name to Koe Creation, was terminated from her employment at a public school after she bragged on TikTok about indoctrinating her kindergarten class into gender identity politics and teaching them what she described as ‘kink fetishes’. She has a book on Amazon right now titled, This Heart Holds Many: My Life as the Nonbinary Millennial Child of a Polyamorous Family where she criticizes American values and social norms using the same philosophical arguments of critical race theory. Years ago in 2017, when Koe Creation had first became a teacher at that school, she posted on an internet forum asking for help in drafting a parent release form that would allow her to legally teach children about alternative sexual fetishes and lifestyles without the parents knowing what she was doing. She had apparently been doing this under the school’s nose for many years.
Yet another teacher was also recently fired from a California school. Gabriel Gripe was a social studies teacher at Inderkum High School for many years, despite parents complaining about him. Gripe hanged Antifa, BLM and pride flags in his classroom and he told students if the flags made them uncomfortable then it’s because they are fascists. He would give children extra credit homework to attend antifa rallies and he was recorded by an undercover journalist as bragging about his job being to turn these children into “revolutionaries” by “scaring the shit out of them”. It was not until the video went viral and an army of parents descended on a school board meeting to protest his behavior that he was finally terminated from the school’s employment.
At Lehi High School a chemistry teacher named Leah Kinyon was caught on video by a student ranting about the Covid-19 vaccine, gender identity politics and calling her students dumb and their parents dumb. She was terminated, but this was apparently not the first time she had done this.
At a high school in Hudson, Ohio high school students were provided writing prompt assignments by their teacher asking them to write sex scenes. The mayor of the town has called for the resignation of the school board.
These are not the only cases; these are just the most well publicized cases in recent weeks. This has been going on for many years and it will continue to go on until parents finally start organizing and demanding the removal of this curriculum from the schools and the colleges they send their children to. It seems it takes a huge protest by parents to get these educators out of the classrooms but this piece-meal approach to the removal of individual teachers does not mean a new teacher won’t be hired who has already been indoctrinated in the same ideologies by the colleges. I remind you, the anti-racism ideology was created by Bidol specifically for the purpose of indoctrinating public school students. It began in K-12 education. The entire point has been to teach this ideology in the K-12 classrooms. It’s not a by-product of the ideology — it is the original intention of it. And they are succeeding because they are not being opposed as forcefully as they should be by the local communities where it is being taught to students.
Some of the ideas of these anti-racist activists have even made their way into the so-called Social Emotional Learning (SEL) programs used by schools when they discuss the idea of “equity” — the term “equity” has also been twisted to mean something entirely different. When they use the term “equity” they are again referring to the systems of privilege that create oppression framework that is advocated for by critical race theorists. They claim these are “evidence based” but again as we can clearly see from the earliest writings of these social activists, they do not mean “evidence” the way that everyone else does because they reject science and logic as tools of oppressors. They aren’t talking about actual evidence — they are talking about what they feel in their hearts is right. Again, it’s based in motivated reasoning.
As mentioned near the beginning of this essay, these redefinitions of racism and prejudice and other terms in order for the social activists to win their arguments are examples of an appeal to purity fallacy. Appeal to purity fallacies are an issue because they rely on inconsistent meaning of words, which means trying to communicate between two disagreeing parties using words becomes impossible when one side refuses to accept commonly held definitions for words.
When communication between passionately disagreeing parties breaks down, humans have a strong tendency to engage in violence to get their points across, which should not surprise anyone who has witnessed the events of 2020 with all of the rioting, the destruction of entire cities with arson and looting, and the use of large crowds of bullies to intimidate other people into accepting their perspectives. This is why Critical Race Theory results in this kind of violence when the anti-racists are unable to convince others of their ridiculously anti-intellectual beliefs. If you want racism to end, you don’t do it by teaching children a fallacious way of thinking about themselves, other people and the way our country works. What you teach them is reason and logic, you teach them how to use science, you teach them rhetoric so they understand how to construct a narrative that has consistency and is based on facts so that their beliefs can be defended adequately. You don’t teach them a framework like Critical Race Theory that promotes the use of violence when others refuse to accept your definitions for words.
Critical Race Theory Is Racism Itself And Its Advocates Fan the Last Remaining Embers of Racism in America to Profit From The Chaos It Causes In Our Communities
I conclude this criticism of Critical race theory by publicly condemning it. Critical race theory is an insidious and evil framework that promotes genuine racism — racism by what the word actually means, which is prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against a person or people on the basis of their membership in a particular racial or ethnic group This is why in every community Critical race theory becomes taught to students it causes conflict, anger and hysteria. It’s because it turns these people into racists who therefore practice prejudice, discriminations and antagonism directed against people on the basis of their membership in a particular ethnic group — in this case, anyone of European descent.
We can be confident that this is what the term racism actually means because racism as a word was actually created to describe the belief that the human race was divided into distinct racial groups who had huge genetic differences as a population group when it came to traits such as intelligence and physical aptitude. It was not a term specifically created to describe prejudice of European people against everyone else. This is why the Nazis are frequently described as racists, because the Nazis persecuted the ethnically European Jewish people. The ethnically European Jewish people who were, by the way, the wealthy elite of German society at the time before the Nazis came to power and stole their money and engaged in genocide against them.
If you believe the definition of the word racism that is promoted by these so-called anti-racist critical race theorist people, then you cannot label what the Nazis did to the Jews as racism. This arguably is the reason why many of these “anti-racist” critical race theorists advocate for prejudice against Jewish people, because these critical race theorist also view Jewish people as just being another group of “White people”.
I would go so far as to suggest that teaching critical race theory to children is a form of child abuse, because it causes significant psychological harm in how they view others, themselves and the world. It makes it harder for them to thrive and succeed in society and will cause them nothing but distress.
We will not have a democracy anymore if the critical race theorists are permitted to use our public schools to indoctrinate entire generations of American children into these racist anti-American ideologies that intentionally confuse them with the definition of words and what things mean in an effort to create revolutionaries that will overthrow American institutions for the sole benefit of the revolutionaries.
Addendum: In Response to the 1619 Project Claiming America was Founded When Slaves Arrived in Colonies.
CRT activists have engaged in historical revisionism to change the date of American’s founding from the issuance of the Declaration of Independence to instead when the first slaves arrived in the Americas. This revisionism is called the 1619 Project. The revisionism is seemingly done because the words of the Declaration of Independence are inconvenient for their argument, those words being, We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
While the CRT activists will often point out that slavery still existed in the American colonies at this time, it was not widely supported and was actually a major point of contention between the Colonies. Also, while Thomas Jefferson is frequently credited as the writer of the Declaration of Independence, there actually was a committee of five founding fathers, among which was Benjamin Franklin, who by this time was a public and staunch opponent of slavery. Benjamin Franklin is one of the founding fathers who, along with other Pennsylvanian Quakers, started abolitionist groups that eventually transformed into the Republican party of Lincoln that ended slavery in America.
Also on the committee of five was John Adams, who never owned a slave in his entire life and is quoted as saying, “I have, through my whole life, held the practice of slavery in such abhorrence, that I have never owned a negro or any other slave, though I have lived for many years in times, when the practice was not disgraceful, when the best men in my vicinity thought it not inconsistent with their character, and when it has cost me thousands of dollars for the labor and subsistence of free men, which I might have saved by the purchase of negroes at times when they were very cheap”. Before he was elected as the 2nd president of the USA, John Adams was a lawyer who defended slaves who sued for their freedom against their masters, and in 1780, his home state of Massachusetts outlawed slavery on the basis that John Adams had co-authored the Declaration of Independence.
Another member of the Five was Roger Sherman, who also opposed slavery as he was a Puritan and the Puritans opposed slavery.
So three out of the five members of the committee that wrote the Declaration of Independence were against slavery and did not own slaves. Thomas Jefferson, the most widely known member to own slaves, did introduce legislation to end slavery; he banned the importation of new slaves to Virginia, and then later as president, the entire country. Jefferson introduced a bill to end slavery by 1800, which unfortunately failed to pass Congress by one vote. The original draft of the Declaration of Independence by Jefferson had a section denouncing King George III for having forced the slave trade onto the American colonies. Jefferson’s main hesitation in releasing his slaves was because he believed there was nowhere for these people to go in American society and he wanted a planned emancipation.
George Washington is often criticized for his owning of slaves; it is often ignored that Washington did not purchase most of his slaves, but rather inherited them when he married his wife. After the Revolutionary War, Washington desired the ending of slavery and refused to sell or split up the families of his slaves. Because Washington understood the topic of ending slavery could potentially lead to a civil war in the newly minted country, he did not publicly speak about the topic but in his private correspondence he petitioned other leaders to support ending the practice of slavery, and on his death he freed all of his slaves in his will. This matters significantly because George Washington’s will was widely read to the public and became part of the abolitionist movement in the US that led to the ending of slavery; George Washington’s dying wish was to end slavery in America.
It is important to note that the practice of slavery was not invented purely against African peoples; it was a widely practiced aspect of all human cultures throughout history up until this point in time in the Age of Enlightenment. Every culture, from the Native peoples of the Americas pre-European contact, to the Asian cultures, to the Africans to the Middle East; slavery had been practiced for thousands of years. America was on the forefront of ending slavery and the Declaration of Independence was a powerful instrument that influenced people throughout the world to end slavery in their own countries.
Everything I have told you about the founding fathers is information that is removed from the kind of pseudo-history that critical race theorists wish to instruct our children in. They ignore these inconvenient details about our nation’s founding and instead present the Founding Fathers as villains who had nothing to do with the abolitionment of slavery in America.
The only reason slavery took so long to end in America is because some southern state leaders relied heavily on slavery and would not give it up, and the nation was too young to risk a civil war to force the matter. America was under constant threat of war by other nations looking to seize the opportunity for instability, and so slavery was long sought to be ended through politics to avoid such a splintering war. Unfortunately, the founding fathers who opposed slavery were correct that forcing the issue legally would result n a civil war so any reasonable person should be able to understand none of us would be here today in this country if the founding fathers had gone to war against each other over the issue of slavery. It is not one of the niceties of history but it is viewing it within its proper context.
America was not founded in racism; it was founded in the pursuit of Liberty and that is why slavery was indeed ended in the USA, and it is why we have become the least racist country that has ever existed in the history of humanity. This entire topic only has power because people in America care so deeply about ending racism. CRT would have no foothold to gain influence if America truly was the kind of racist country the anti-racist activists claims it to be, because the majority wouldn’t care to listen.
You do not get to rewrite our history because it is inconvenient for your beliefs and lust for political power by deceiving others about this history. There are people who still remember the true story of America and what our shared values are. This is the greatest country in the world, in all of human history. But it won’t remain that way if people won’t fight for it to remain that way. That fight requires opposition to the indoctrination of young minds into anti-American ideologies like critical race theory. We must oppose it. Our future depends upon it.
Thank you to PSA Stitch YouTube Channel for the videos, “What Ally Really Means“, The Origin of Only White People Can Be Racist Part 1 and Part 2, which served as a starting point for researching this topic.