By Jennifer Ju
Facing Ourselves
Jennifer Ju
The debate regarding critical race theory rages on. In addition to the ardent arguments about its merits and dangers, there appears to be a dispute about what the term itself really means.
Perhaps the way we view critical race theory in part stems from which definition of the word “critical” we use. “Critical” can be defined as “expressing adverse or disapproving comments or judgments.” However, the definition of “critical” also includes “expressing or involving an analysis of the merits and faults” of something. Criticism or disapproval is implied in the first definition, but the second definition embraces a more neutral or objective viewpoint.
So what is critical race theory? Is it a pointed criticism, a subversive movement designed to make “white people feel bad about themselves?” Is CRT a way to indoctrinate our children and teach them falsified, revisionist history? Or is CRT a way of analyzing the past as a means of rectifying ongoing injustice? Is CRT a way of expanding the lens of inquiry and understanding to include the viewpoints of those in the non-dominant culture?
Opponents of CRT note that even civil rights veteran Bob Woodson recently denounced it as “new racism, and it’s more lethal than the old racism,” and opined that CRT wants society to focus more on the color of our skin rather than “the content of our character.” Those who oppose CRT also cite concerns that it builds walls between races and encourages a “dumbing down” of academic standards.
Others accuse CRT of being an assault on democracy and patriotism. Some fear that CRT will be detrimental to the self-image and self-esteem of non-minorities, particularly youth. Many worry that CRT feeds lies to our children, disguised as education.
Proponents of CRT point out that it is rooted in critical legal studies, which was first developed in the 1970s. CLS argues that that law is subject to bias and is not objective or neutral. CRT homed its focus on the investigation of the role of race and racism in the legal system, and how institutionalized racism, whether it be intentional or unconscious, has pervasively stacked the deck against minorities. This stacked deck is hardly a secret; it has manifested through zoning and housing laws, the criminal justice system, public policies, access to health care and opportunities for education and employment, just to name a few.
CRT acknowledges that racism continues to exist today and is not a thing of the past. Supporters also state that CRT exposes the ways in which racism has affected every minority group, and promotes the sharing of their stories and experiences as important lessons from which we can all learn.
The heated discussions regarding CRT reflect how passionate both its supporters and opponents are. The above viewpoints can appear so disparate that it may seem those from opposing camps will never be able to come to a consensus about what the problems and solutions are.
Although trust is paramount to progress, misinformation is frequently spread. It is hard to know what is truth versus “fake news.” Distrust is rampant, with some even accusing educators of lying about whether or not they are “sneaking” CRT into the curriculum. This strife is often magnified by the media on both sides, because fear sells. Despite our differences, as humans filled with fault and frailty, we all share the fear that deep down we are not enough, that others may find us deficient and reject us, and that we are not truly seen.
Every one of us is also motivated by the desire for safety and security. Discussions around topics like CRT are challenging because oftentimes we feel criticized or unheard, which registers as a threat to us. Whether or not the threat is real, it triggers the “fight or flight” response, with the tradeoff being that the physiological changes that occur to ensure our safety literally supersede our ability to use our brain’s frontal lobe as effectively or demonstrate coherent thinking.
However, connecting with others activates a different kind of reaction in our minds and bodies, inducing a recovery, repair and renewal response which is equally crucial for our long-term survival. We need to connect, rather than push each other away, when we have these difficult dialogues.
Like many of you, I am not an expert on CRT. However, when we step away from fear- based thinking, we can more clearly investigate the principles on which CRT states it is based and see if CRT helps raise those who have been and are currently systemically disadvantaged, or if it is being wielded as a weapon to tear down the non-minority. We can examine if CRT is being used as a tool for social justice and empowerment, or if it is being warped into something it was not meant to be: an instrument of division.
Rather than accuse, seek to understand. Be open. Discuss. Listen. Only then can we come closer to having an honest and effective discourse on what it means to truly have “liberty and justice for all.” Our survival, as individuals and as a community, depends on it.
Jennifer Ju, MD is a physician who is a graduate of the Brown University family medicine residency program. She is also an actor and writer who has performed in various theatres across the state and whose plays have been produced locally. Ju has also presented numerous online and in-person workshops on mindfulness, health and wellness for parents and children, as well as for pre-K-12 educators in New Haven and Fairfield counties.