The Critical Race Theory Debate Is A Lot About Guilt
Yours, mine, and everyone’s
The last decade in America has become about guilt.
It’s no longer about science. We can’t agree what science is anymore.
It’s not about a utilitarian greater good. American leaders refuse to debate based upon effort in & value out because we don’t believe in analysis.
No, it’s about faith in religion or ideology or clashing rights…or guilt.
We have weaponized guilt, asking
Who is guilty for soaring inflation?
Who is guilty for flouting pandemic restrictions?
Who is guilty for the struggling environment.
Who is guilty for the evaporating middle class?
Who is guilty for the economic state of poor Black Americans?
Guilt, guilt, guilt, guilt, guilt,…
One of the many rungs on the ladder of guilt that got us here was Critical Race Theory. It is far from the first step. And it is not the last.
CRT tries to explain real problems and then assigns guilt for causing them.
Slavery and Jim Crow laws absoluately eviscerated the ideals described in our Declaration of Independence: “…that all men are created equal.”
The leaders and societies that supported slavery are, therefore, guilty.
Even after changes in laws during the 1960’s, CRT reasons that the systems behind law enforcement, education, mortgage financing, and voting — though they avoid using explicitly-biased language or rules— continue to be guilty of producing less beneficial outcomes for people of color, even when other variables are largely equal.
In 2019, the 1619 Project stepped even more boldly. It declares at the very start, “Our democracy’s founding ideals were false when they were written.”
With that logic, the whole American project is made to sound pretty darn guilty.
The 2021 laws written to counter the ideas behind CRT and the “1619 Project” imagine that they are defusing this ladder of guilt.
In practice, these laws simply add new rungs.
The Tennessee legislature structures its “anti-CRT” law in a classic Ten Commandments “Thou shalt not” form. Anyone breaking a commandment is, naturally, guilty.
The Tennessee law forbids the teaching of concepts deemed inappropriate in formal education: “The following concepts are prohibited concepts that shall not be included or promoted in a course of instruction…”
Many of the 14 Anti-CRT Commandments are virtuous by most standards. They prohibit teaching that “one race or sex is inherently superior…” or that “an individual should be discriminated against…” or that “an individual’s moral character is determined by the individual’s race or sex” or that “governments should deny to any person…equal protection of the law.”
In Commandment “f”, the law explicitly begins addressing the problem of guilt. The “following concept is a prohibited concept that shall not be included or promoted:”
“[that] an individual should feel discomfort, guilt, anguish, or another form of psychological distress solely because of the individual’s race or sex…”
The anti-CRT law seeks to counter the spiral of guilt. It declares it illegal to teach anything that might make someone feel guilty for the sake of their race, skin color, or gender.
Sadly, we all know the outcome of these sorts of things.
Legislating morality is a dangerous thing. The blind mole that we were certain was fully whacked starts popping up everywhere.
Guilt is now everywhere.
Once we tell someone not to think of an elephant, the thought that comes to mind is of a giant, gray, four-legged mammal with big ears and a long trunk for a nose.
Once we start trying to bluntly shape the ideas that reside in the minds of our children, we have to go whole hog. No little mouse steps will do.
The Tennessee CRT law keeps on going. Why stop at Ten Commandments when Fourteen would be better?
In Tennessee schools it is additionally wrong to teach concepts that could imply
- “A meritocracy is inherently racist or sexist, or designed by a particular race or sex to oppress members of another race or sex.”
- “This state or the United States is fundamentally or irredeemably racist or sexist.”
- “[The promotion of] division between, or resentment of, a race, sex, religion, creed, nonviolent political affiliation, social class, or class of people.”
- “The rule of law does not exist, but instead is a series of power relationships and struggles among racial or other groups.”
- “All Americans are not created equal and are not endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, including, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”
To support its framework of guilt, the Anti-CRT law concludes by defining a mechanism for citizens (parents) to issue formal complaints about teachers. It demands that each school investigate each complaint, adjudicate each, and make public the determination of guilt or innocence of each.
More and more rungs on our ladder of guilt.
In defense of the drafters of the Tennessee law, it’s clear that some saw the challenge its commandments create. I imagine that most lawmakers think themselves enlightened and “emphasizing reason and individualism rather than [just] tradition.”
It is no surprise, then, that the law goes on to declare the “impartial discussion of controversial aspects of history” as acceptable.
Yet, with such a powerful mechanism attuned to finding guilt around so many concepts, it is hard to imagine that even the most deft teacher is able to navigate between the scylla and charybdis imposed by their state’s anti-CRT law.
Many just quietly give up on teaching in our minefield of ideas.
Before publishing the “1419 Project,” New York Times editors reached out to the historian Leslie M. Harris about the validity of claims made throughout its initial document.
Dr. Harris was contacted because of her “expertise” (what a dirty word today) in multiple periods of Black American history and in the historiography (the history of historical study) of slavery. Harris is, as a point of fact, a black woman.
Though Harris strongly agreed with the need for efforts like the 1419 Project, she disagreed with some of the historical assertions it made, including
“One critical reason that the colonists declared their independence from Britain was because they wanted to protect the institution of slavery in the colonies, which had produced tremendous wealth.”
Based upon Dr. Harris’ studies, this statement was not historically correct nor essentially true. She encouraged the New York Times to revise it. When the Times published it unchanged, the 1619 Project had offered up a third, electrified rail that would trigger challenges that would derail its very mission.
This was exactly the outcome Dr. Harris had feared.
It is a shame.
Since we refuse to accept blame where it might well be due, since we are more passionate about winning for our side than justice for all, since we refuse to really listen and discuss, much less to compromise,…
We are left to faithfully hunt for the guilt of our adversaries.
I’m drawn to a statement from Calvin of Calvin and Hobbes fame:
“There’s no problem so awful, that you can’t add some GUILT to it and make it even worse.” — Bill Watterson
