Critical Race Theory, Pauline Hanson and lemon juice.

This week the Australian  Senate passed a motion calling on the Federal Government to exclude critical race theory from the national teaching curriculum.

The motion was moved by right-wing Senator Pauline Hanson of the One Nation Party, and supported by conservative parties. Critical race theory, or CRT, is an academic theory developed primarily by Black scholars and activists to highlight the systemic and institutional nature of racism.

This action came after The Australian, a News Corp national newspaper, opined that the proposed draft national curriculum is “preoccupied with the oppression, discrimination and struggles of Indigenous Australians”.

CRT is a collection of theoretical frameworks, which provide lenses through which to examine structural and institutional racism.

Within CRT, racism is viewed as more than just individual prejudices. Instead, it is considered to include a wide range of social practices deeply embedded in policies, laws and institutions.

CRT was developed from the 1960s and 1970s by legal scholars applying sociological critical theory in their work, although the term “CRT” did not emerge until the late 1980s. They investigated how and why racial disparities persisted in the United States (although the theory framework is not country-specific, and can be applied to any country, like, I’d suggest, Australia or Canada), and did so through analysing these disparities in the legal and criminal justice system, as well as how education and employment opportunities (or lack theoreof) impacted generational wealth accumulation.

Some general principles underpin CRT.

They include:

1. race is understood as a “social construct” rather than a biological reality. That is, supposed “racial” differences between groups of humans are founded in our social experience rather than our genetics (this is well supported by scientific evidence)
2. “systemic racism” means social institutions and practices unwittingly contribute to and maintain white supremacy. “Invisible” everyday practices perpetuate racial inequality and inequity in health, education and the law
3. everyone has multiple, overlapping aspects of their identity which may impact their life experiences. These include race, gender, age, class, sexual orientation, disability and nationality. This suggests many people understand or interpret their life experiences through this “intersectional” lens
4. critical race theory encourages reflection on normalised ways of doing things, especially to question who benefits from systemic privilege and why.

Opponents of critical race theory sometimes claim it creates division and discord between people. For example, they claim critical race theory is intended to make people with privileged identities, such as being white, “hate themselves” or feel shame and guilt for their whiteness.

Which is to say, an absurd and irrelevant response — “I’m uncomfortable about my racism and don’t want to think about it”!

Either CRT is supported by argument and evidence, or it is not. If CRT is a logically consistent argument, and there is supporting evidence, it behoves us to acknowledge that, and to work for a solution –else we give up on even a pretence of rationality and fairness, and we’re all pig-people.

I maintain that CRT is so –consistent with reason and evidence– that structural and everyday racism is very real, and it has consequences, beyond the affronted indignation of opponents. See this report by the Australian National University’s National Centre for Epidemiology and Population Health:

https://www.smh.com.au/national/everyday-racism-is-real-and-the-research-says-it-makes-people-unhappy-and-sick-20210624-p583y4.html

See here for facts on Indigenous disadvantage in Australia:

https://www.creativespirits.info/aboriginalculture/law

What causes the incandescent rage of the conservatives and right-wing at mere mention of CRT? And why no such reaction to, say, skyrocketing housing and health costs, increasing wealth inequality and inaction on climate change, political incompetence and unaccountability, or police brutality?

Egocentric bias, privilege, fear, and an application of lemon juice!