After reading my anti-critical race theory piece in the last issue of The Clarion, several things might be running through your head. You may be wondering why someone would dare to argue against challenging the white narrative or wondering if the part about things getting plugged into critical race theory is true or asking yourself who on earth Kali Fontanilla is. In this follow-up article, I address some of the arguments that have been used to support critical race theory in K-12 schools.
Argument #1: Critical race theory is minority history. Some proponents of critical race theory argue that it represents the only true effort to tell the history of minorities. They say that the fact that different branches of critical race theory (Lat Crit, Tribal Crit, etc.) exist proves that critical race theory is the best historical account of people of color.
This is incorrect because, once again, critical race theory is not real history; it is a legal theory. But even if it did constitute a historical narrative, and wherever and whenever woke historians inject it into history, it is a gross misrepresentation of the facts.
It gives a fatalistic view of America, seeking to castigate her for her flaws and completely ignore her successes. It disregards incidents of racial progress and movements toward equality, however few they may be. Let me repeat that last part: it disregards any occurrence of racial progress and equality.
That means that critical race theory insists that people of color have not made progress in this country, and that race relations can never be improved, when there is much evidence to the contrary: the American Civil War, the Civil Rights Movement (both white and Black people participated in the protests) and the Double V campaign. So much for minority history; critical race theorists downplay their accomplishments and view them only in the context of “inequality still prevailed; this did not really do much to stop it.” Critical race theory is not so focused on telling the history of non-whites as it is in twisting that history to fit a leftist narrative.
Argument #2: Critical race theory does not divide us. Some may dispute the notion that critical race theory seeks to divide people into racial castes, shaming the oppressor, white people, while pampering the victim (everyone else). They argue that hegemony simply wishes to examine the role of racism in American society.
In order to perform this analysis, however, critical race theorists must separate the white man’s social experience from everyone else’s. They insist that the former has an insurmountable socioeconomic advantage due to his privilege, and that society has turned him into a fragile and racist result of privilege.
Does this not lead to a fragmented society? The one labeled “oppressor” will become ever more self-conscious of his assigned position; the one labeled victim will become bitter because he can never get ahead no matter how hard he tries because of the straight white male. Interracial friendships and associations that were once strong as iron will weaken. Many will break completely. This then results in even more division, as individuals will only want to associate with people of the same race, gender and socioeconomic status as them.
Get enough of this, and society falls apart, torn at the seams, the very fabric which held it together: unity. We have already seen some of this, to an extent. We already have enough division in America. We do not need it anymore.
Argument #3: The only people who oppose critical race theory are white. Another common argument critical race theory supporters use is that the opposition consists solely of fragile racist white people who do not want to talk about race and lack a proper understanding of what critical race theory is. This claim crumbles before the truth; a small dose of reality breaks it apart. There is a considerable amount of people of color who do not think favorably of critical race theory. Yes, they are real and no, they are not race-traitors. (To even suggest that they are is racist.)
Kali Fontanilla, the former high school educator I mentioned in the previous issue, is of Jamaican descent. Candace Owens, a black conservative author, commentator and activist, is another good example. You may have heard of her movement, Blexit, which seeks to wake Black people up and turn them into independent/conservative voters. She does not stand for critical race theory, and in a Fox News interview, she even called for parents to withdraw their students from public school education, according to a Black Enterprise article by Andrea Blackstone titled “Candace Owens Says, ‘It’s Time to Pull Our Kids out of School’ Because They Are Taught ‘How to Hate White People,” published April 7, 2021. Both of these black women (yes, you heard that right) do not support CRT in public schools. Neither does Larry Elder, the Black Republican who ran against Gavin Newsom for California governor and was labeled the Black face of white supremacy. As Lisa Benatan and Matt Wall observed in their Fox News article, “Larry Elder says he would support legislation banning critical race theory in schools,” published Sept. 8, 2021, he stated he would pass a critical race theory ban if elected. I could go on and on and mention Amala Ekpunobi, Antonia Okafor, Rob Smith and Felicia Killings, but for the sake of brevity, I will not. You got the point. There are a lot of Black people who do not support critical race theory, and it is time people admitted it.
There are many other arguments for critical race theory I could debunk, but I chose these ones to illustrate the point, which I hope you get by now. There are many good arguments for why critical race theory should not be in public education. Some are just as good, or even better than the arguments for it. Those who bear these views deserve to be given a voice and an opportunity to articulate their opinions, too.