February 25, 2018
MY CORNER by Boyd Cathey
Our Educational
System has become a Major Weapon in the Effort to Destroy Western Christian
Civilization
The Assault of Critical Race Theory conjoined
with Cultural Marxism
Friends,
This morning I would
like to let a good friend and my former colleague and superior at the North
Carolina State Archives take center stage [I do not give his name here, but you
may find it by accessing this discussion online]. I forward on to you a portion
of his initial “message to friends” that he sent out on Sunday, February 25,
with an attached OpEd piece that showed up in The [Raleigh] News & Observer [Friday, February 23], by one
Professor John Biewen, who is Audio Program Director at the Center for
Documentary Studies at Duke University in Durham, North Carolina. Professor
Biewen is illustrative of the wide influence—I would say stranglehold—that what
is termed “Critical Race Theory” [CRT] now exercises over academia, most
especially in our college law schools, and in departments of English and
Comparative Literature (but also now embedded in most other liberal arts
disciplines, including sociology, history and philosophy).
As my former colleague
indicates and describes it in his short introduction, CRT basically begins
with—posits—that “historic white racism and oppression” and “white privilege
and supremacy” are “givens” in Western Christian society, historic realities
that characterize and have shaped our history. They are ingrained and innate in
“whiteness,” and thus any remediation must be radical and revolutionary,
essentially tearing them out by the very root. And thus, the old classical
“liberal” idea of “equality” and “equal justice” and “merit” (as remedies) must
be completely redefined.
Instead, reaching this
new brand of “equality” must entail and require, among other actions:
reparations for endless past injustices, criminalization of what is deemed
“hate speech,” and special compensatory privileges (extreme affirmative action)
extended to designated minorities, that is, the ones that CRT designates as
having been “oppressed” by the “white power structure.”
In other words, in
layman’s language: the boat has tilted so
far in one direction for so many centuries, that now it must be (forcibly and
extremely) titled in the other direction for an indeterminate time. Old slogans
of the older classic liberal idea of “equality” are completely insufficient.
In academia, on our
college campuses, this means the suppression of anything deemed to be “hate
speech,” and special preferences (NOT based on merit) for those designated and
formerly “oppressed” minorities, the transformation of school curricula to
reflect these CRT theories and ideological goals, and the connivance and at
least tacit cooperation of college administrators.
In a real sense, CRT
dictates a kind of totalitarianism, academically and culturally. Since the
“white oppressors” by definition incarnate “evil,” in fact they deserve no
respect or real consideration. As they have “oppressed” the downtrodden peoples
of the Third World for centuries, they must be made to give way, to cede their
power and authority, to continually grovel and apologize profusely for their
past “sins” (which, in actuality, can never be fully expiated). In short, they
must now experience the brunt of a furious, perhaps at times violent, ongoing revolution
and a resultant deprivation of their “privileges.”
CRT now, in fact, dominates
(even if not named) most all our national conversations about “race and
racism,” and a “sister” theorization of radical feminism operates and dominates
equally in the area of discussion over the “role” and “rights” of women in our
society (and, thus, “historic male oppression and supremacy”).
As CRT is manifested
in just about every discussion, in just about every question that arises these
days concerning in any way race or racial questions, both national political
parties now buy into its template. The Democrats now fully embrace it as their
governing narrative; the Republicans, while often restless about its more
radical manifestations, still acknowledge de
facto its significance and power, and, normally, do not challenge its
intellectual hegemony and control in society.
Want to discover the
actual basis for the unbridled and frenzied hatred of Confederate monuments—or
of the hatred of stricter voting laws—or of the attacks on perceived “police
brutality” (directed at blacks)—or of countless other assaults on envisioned
examples of “white oppression” and “white privilege,” then CRT is the
explanation.
And it is the
conjunction of CRT with Cultural Marxist theory about culture—and the gradual
undermining and transformation of traditional society—that has produced what we
see on most college campuses (and increasingly in public schools), and what we
observe now reigning triumphant in Hollywood, what is constantly broadcast via
the Mainstream Media, what permeates our politics, and, yes, in how our very
language is being shaped, censored and abused.
It is, in short, a
multifaceted Revolution against both God and Man, against the Divine Positive
Law and against the very laws of God-given Nature. It is an advance panzer unit
of the “rough beast” (to use William Butler Yeats’ poetic imagery), of the
Anti-Christ, itself. And above all it must be met in spiritual battle, but it
also must be opposed on every front resolutely, totally and to the very death.
Recall the lines from
Robert Bolt’s “The Man for All Seasons,” when St. Thomas More was able to
cross-examine Richard Rich (his lying accuser): “Why
Richard, it profits a man nothing to give his soul for the whole world... but
for Wales?”
We weigh what is at stake; we cannot sacrifice our souls
“for Wales.” We must stand against these minions of Evil and send them back to
the lower reaches of Hell from whence they came.
And that means radical educational reform—small steps like
gaining control of the Board of Governors at the UNC system are just small counter-revolutions.
My friend Dr. Clyde Wilson suggests that our public
colleges (and probably many of our public schools) should be napalmed.
Irrespective of that increasingly appealing solution, privatization of our
public education and an ironclad insistence that our colleges return to their
original mission (even if that means firing every professor on the faculty,
before vetting and rehiring some of them back) should be de riguer a constant goal.
And foremost, we must at the beginning recognize that the
very concept of “equality,” itself, the old classic liberal totem that has
regulated much of American life and dictated American ideals since the
conclusion of the War Between the States, is not what our country’s Founders
envisaged, and that they understood that the liberal idea of “equality”
(whether of result or
opportunity) violated God-given human nature and the natural order of things.
That idea easily gives way to the perversions of CRT.
In short, our politicians and leaders should be reading and
quoting John C. Calhoun (and Robert Lewis Dabney), and avoiding Abe Lincoln
like the plague….
The alternative is the end of our culture and of our
civilization.
Now, let me turn this installment over to my friend’s
items: first, his introduction (slightly edited), followed by Professor
Biewen’s demonic screed (and then a few more comments by my friend), and then a
critical essay from the independent Harvard Law Record (an excellent
explanation).
Dr. Boyd D. Cathey
===================================================================
Dear friends,
I attach
an editorial by John Biewen, a Duke University documentary
studies professor. I am sure that it will receive different reactions from
you. (....) Mr. Biewen clearly reflects the influence of "critical
race theory" (CRT)--with its stereotypical concepts of
"whiteness," "white privilege," and "structural
racism."
In the
academy CRT is found in law, education, political science, and women's and
ethnic studies. At UNC-CH, CRT is taught in the law school and in English and
Comparative Literature. Of course, academic freedom allows--as it should--CRT
to be taught in the market place of ideas, but one must ask if those
departments offer any intellectual viewpoints to the contrary?
A quick primer on CRT can be found in Richard Delgado and
Jean Stefancic, Critical Race Theory: An Introduction,
3rd. ed., New York University Press, 2017. it is an easy read. Basically, CRT
rejects the classic liberalism of color blindness and promotes race conscious
remediation against what is perceived to be pervasive white supremacy and
racism throughout our society. Remedies include reparations, criminalization of
"hate" speech, and affirmative action, and so forth.
Judge Richard Posner of the U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of
Appeals calls critical race theorists the "lunatic core" of
"radical legal egalitarianism." He has further written:
What is
most arresting about critical race theory is that...it turns its back on the
Western tradition of rational inquiry, forswearing analysis for narrative.
Rather than marshal logical arguments and empirical data, critical race
theorists tell stories — fictional, science-fictional, quasi-fictional,
autobiographical, anecdotal—designed to expose the pervasive and debilitating
racism of America today. (From a section on CRT with citations in Wikipedia.)
In
case Wikipedia is deemed to be too light weight, I attach an
article from the Harvard Law Record on CRT. My
question is whether CRT--as an instrument of anti-racism--is actually racist.
(….)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Raleigh News & Observer
Seeing White
BY JOHN BIEWEN February 23,
2018 09:42 AM Updated February 23, 2018
01:14 PM
San Antonio Spurs
coach Gregg Popovich, asked the other day about the importance of marking Black
History Month, noted that the National Basketball Association is “made up of a
lot of black guys.” More importantly, he said, “we live in a racist country
that hasn’t figured it out yet.”
This sort of
candor has won Popovich deep respect among people of color while prompting
consternation among some white folks. In another remark that went viral last
fall, Popovich said, “We [white people] still have no clue of what being born
white means.”
He’s right. Most
of us white Americans have little understanding of whiteness. Where did it come
from? Who invented the notion of being white, and why? How does whiteness
function in the world?
In a seven-hour
podcast series, “Seeing White”, I
dove into those questions along with fellow journalist Chenjerai Kumanyika and
with help from leading scholars of race.
Not only do we
learn that race is man-made, we tell the story of its invention in Europe and
we name names. We explore how notions of whiteness and blackness were further
refined in Colonial America as our strikingly cruel brand of chattel slavery
took shape. We show how racial science reinforced racist ideas well into the
20th century.
“Seeing White”
struck a chord. It got our modest, independent podcast on some Best-of-2017
lists, and downloads
are approaching a million. It seems there’s a hunger in these
troubling times for a deeper understanding of how we got here.
America’s default
narrative on race goes roughly like this: The United States was the first
nation founded not on tribalism but on universalist ideals, and that makes us
exceptional.
True, we’ll
acknowledge, our Euro-American forebears got off on the wrong foot with slavery
and the coercive extraction of Native land. But everybody was racist back then.
Our inevitable redemption was written into our national DNA in those founding
documents: “All men are created equal.” And sure enough, we fixed slavery in
the 1860s and Jim Crow a century later, and even elected a black president.
We’ve still got a few stray bigots out there – backward Southerners, mostly –
but racism isn’t much of a thing anymore so people should get over the past.
That’s our story
and we’re sticking to it, apparently. The problem? It’s wrong.
In fact, overt
white supremacy is painfully recent. For about 350 of our 400 years of U.S. and
colonial history, white dominance was codified in law. Some black children
attacked while integrating Southern schools are just now reaching retirement
age. People who screamed hate at those children are alive and voting. There are
black Americans alive today whose grandparents were born in bondage.
As for those “few”
stray bigots? Turns
out there are more than a few. Those chanting Nazis and Klansmen in
Charlottesville; the string of white supremacist terrorists, including Dylann
Roof; the many Trump supporters who, studies show, voted more on resentment
toward people of color and immigrants than on “economic anxiety.”
Nor is racism a
distinctly Southern problem. It’s an all-over-America thing. Anti-black racism
was the default attitude of white Americans, North and South, before, during
and after the Civil
War. Today, the most segregated cities are mostly in the North.
White supremacy
today is not mainly about the guys with Tiki torches. It’s about power, and
systemic patterns of racial advantage that were baked into our institutions –
institutions that we’ve never fundamentally reformed.
The first Congress
decreed in 1790 that only white people need apply for naturalized citizenship.
Ever since, government largesse directed mostly to white people – the Homestead
Act, federally-backed home loans, the GI Bill – dwarfs the more recent
Affirmative Action programs granting access to people of color (and white
women).
The results prove
we’ve never really changed: The deep, racialized inequities in our schools and
criminal justice system. The studies that show racial bias by employers
depending on whether the applicant’s name is Connor or Darnell. The dramatic
wealth gap between white and black Americans.
Whiteness, like
blackness and the other “races,” is a fiction, invented to justify and explain
exploitation. That fiction and its outgrowth, white supremacy, were central
organizing principles in the building of the United States.
If white Americans
don’t work to overturn the racist structures that our forebears built, then
white supremacy will keep reproducing itself and we’re effectively in collusion
with it.
These truths are
difficult for many of us to accept, as Gregg Popovich said. But they’re not hard
to see if we’ll only open our eyes.
JOHN BIEWEN IS AUDIO PROGRAM DIRECTOR AT THE CENTER FOR DOCUMENTARY
STUDIES AT DUKE UNIVERSITY AND HOST OF THE CDS PODCAST SCENE ON RADIO
[A few online COMMENTS by my PhD/attorney friend:]
Wow, critical race theory is alive and well at
Duke University!
One wishes that Mr. Biewen would have made some concrete suggestions on how to end “structural racism” beyond telling all whites to be ashamed of themselves and 'fess up. In any case, if "white supremacy is . . . about power, and systemic patterns of racial advantage,” its practitioners surely are doing a poor job of it—given the legions of whites who are unemployed, strung out on opioids, and mired in hopelessness.
One also wonders how this academic, who makes a study of everyday life and the conditions of ordinary folks, would not know that, as an ethnic group, whites do not enjoy the highest income, are not the most highly educated, do not have the lowest crime rates, and indeed constitute the largest group in poverty in the U.S.—albeit not proportionately. He needs to take his video camera and interview some of the many sunburnt, wispy, and ragged whites out begging at highway interchanges.
All people need to be treated on their own merits and not according to ancestry--even the white kid in poverty who is automatically denied a Gates Millennium Scholars grant (to help poor youths go to college) because of his or her "race." And should Harvard and other schools be denying young people of Asian ancestry admission because they are already over represented as high achievers (including being 20 percent of Harvard's entering class of 2015)?
To assume that African Americans are helpless pawns in a cauldron of white racism is to look past their own capabilities and remarkable achievements throughout this nation as mayors, police chiefs, corporate CEOs, members of Congress, state legislators, governors, judges, educators, chief of staff of the armed forces, secretary of state, and even president of the United States…..
INDEPENDENT AT HARVARD LAW SCHOOL SINCE 1946
Racism, Justified: A Critical Look at
Critical Race Theory
By
now, most of you have heard of Critical Race Theory. Its narrative, ideology,
and even vocabulary have become a familiar refrain. “Systemic oppression,”
“institutional racism,” and “white privilege” have become common topics of
debate. At Harvard Law, a group of protestors calls for $5 million and three tenure-track
faculty to establish a program on Critical Race Theory at HLS. But, beneath the
demands, there remains a lack of clarity about what Critical Race Theory
actually means.
Critical Race Theory Calls for Permanent, Codified Racial
Preferences
At
the heart of Critical Race Theory lies the rejection of colorblind meritocracy.
“Formal equality overlooks structural disadvantages and requires mere
nondiscrimination or “equal treatment.”[1] Instead, Critical Race Theory
calls for “aggressive, color conscious efforts to change the way things are.”[2] It contemplates, “race-conscious
decision making as a routine, non-deviant mode, a more or less permanent norm”[3] to be used in distributing
positions of wealth, prestige, and power.[4]
Critical
Race Theorists wish to move beyond the narrow scope of current American
affirmative action policies, “which strangles affirmative action principles by
protecting the property interest of whiteness.”[5] Instead, Critical Race Theorists
argue for a “conception of affirmative action where existing distributions of
property will be modified by rectifying unjust loss and inequality.”[6] “Property rights will then be
respected, but they
will not be absolute; rather, they will be considered against a
societal requirement for affirmative action.”[7] “In essence this conception of
affirmative action is moving towards reallocation of power.”[8]Race-conscious decision making is
necessary to “deliberately structure institutions so that communities and
social classes share wealth and power”[9] where race is seen as “a rough
but adequate proxy for connection with a subordinated community.”[10]
Meanwhile,
Critical Race Theory treats the idea of meritocracy—or the idea, in this
context, that the law can and should treat all equally regardless of the color
of their skin—as “a vehicle for self-interest, power, and privilege”[11] This “myth of meritocracy” is
merely a tool to perpetuate the existing power structures that are based on
white supremacy and white privilege. Thus, the myth of meritocracy marginalizes
people of color.[12] The only alternative, then, is
to use racial preferences to “delegitimize the property interest of
whiteness—to dismantle the actual and expected privilege that has attended
‘white’ skin.”[13]
Critical Race Theory Rejects Liberalism
Along
with meritocracy, Critical Race Theory “rejects the traditions of liberalism.”[14] As described by Critical Race
theorist Richard Delgado, “[Critical Race theorists] are suspicious of another
liberal mainstay, namely rights.”[15] “Particularly some of the
older, more radical Critical Race Theory scholars…believe that moral and legal
rights are apt to do the right holder much less good than we like to think.”[16] “In our system, rights are
almost always procedural (such as due process) rather than substantive (for
example, to food, housing, or education).”[17] “Moreover, rights are said to
be alienating. They separate people from each other ‘stay away, I’ve got my
rights’—rather than encouraging them to form close, respectful communities.”[18]
As
a result, Critical Race theorists tend to be less protective of traditional
liberal rights, most
notably those involving speech. Critical Race theorists have called for “tort
remedies for racist speech”[19] and some theorists believe that
“formal criminal and administrative sanction—public as opposed to private
prosecution—is also an appropriate response to racist speech.”[20] These debates, once academic in
nature, have become increasingly salient with the recent wave of campus
protests.[21] Concerns about free speech are
interpreted by some Critical Race theorists as an expression of “white
fragility,” which is “in and of itself an expression of white supremacy.”[22]
Critical Race Theory’s Narrative Approach to Truth
Critical
Race Theory is uniquely reliant on narrative to substantiate its claims. “An
essential tenant of Critical Race Theory is counter storytelling.”[23] Narrative analysis can be used
“to reveal the circular, self-serving nature of particular legal doctrines or
rules.”[24] “Most mainstream scholars
embrace universalism over particularity, and abstract principles and ‘the rule
of law’ over perspectivism.”[25] “Clashing with this more
traditional view, Critical Race Theory emphasizes the opposite, in what has
been termed the ‘call to context.’”
“For
Critical Race Theorists, general laws may be appropriate in some contexts (such
as, perhaps, trusts and estates, or highway speed limits), but political and
moral discourse is not one of them.”[26] Narratives need not necessarily be true to prove their point.
“In order to appraise the contradictions and inconsistencies that pervade the
all too real world of racial oppression, I have chosen in this book the tools
not only of reason but of unreason, of fantasy.”[27]
Narratives
are employed to shore up other basic premises of Critical Race Theory, such as
the notion that “racism is a permanent component of American life” and that racism
continues to play a “dominant role” in American society.[28] For instance, Critical Race
Theorists use individual narratives of hate crime incidents to explore the
import and impact as hate speech in order to argue for the inadequacy of
current punishment.[29] Salient to the current campus
debate, campus protestors often employ narratives to argue that Harvard today
engages in “systemic racism and exclusion.”[30]
A Brief Critique
Critical
Race theory offers a potent mix: rejecting racial neutrality in the law,
rejecting the liberal emphasis on individual rights, rejecting the possibility
of objectively neutral legal analysis and embracing “the tools not only of
reason but of unreason.”[31] It is an unusual combination
for a theory originating on the far left.
If
Critical Race theory were just about affirmative action, perhaps we could let
such indulgences slide. But Critical Race theory not only directs how to
structure the university, but also how to structure the relation of the
individual to the state. Racially-based taxes, racially-based employment quotas,
racially-based redistributions of wealth: none would be beyond the theoretical
horizon of Critical Race theory. All are justified by an appeal to inadequate
racial justice, an appeal that can neither be proved nor disproved, an appeal
that can just as easily be used for naked racial subordination. All fall within
a context where speech labeled as “hurtful” and “racist” could be punishable by
law, and opponents of the racial regime would be silenced.
To
teach Critical Race Theory is to teach the latest in a sad line of theoretical
justifications for legally-codified racism. As a proponent of academic freedom,
I have no problem with this, just as I would have no problem for studying the
legal justifications for other regimes that have codified race into law. But
let’s not pretend that we are doing anything else, and let’s certainly not
mandate the teaching of any such ideology.
Bill Barlow is 3rd year Law.
[1] Harris,
Cheryl. “Whiteness As Property”. Critical
Race Theory: The Key Writings That Formed The Movement. Kimberle
Crenshaw. 1st ed. New York: New York Press, 1995. 289
[3] Kennedy,
Duncan, “A Cultural Pluralist Case for Affirmative Action in Legal Academia.Critical Race Theory: The Key Writings That
Formed The Movement. Kimberle Crenshaw. 1st ed. New York: New York
Press, 1995. 164
[4] Guinier,
Lani, “Groups, Representation, and Race-Conscious Districting: A Case of the
Emperor’s Clothes”. Critical
Race Theory: The Key Writings That Formed The Movement. Kimberle
Crenshaw. 1st ed. New York: New York Press, 1995. 215, making the case that
“race is as effective as geography in functioning as a political proxy.” The article
defends certain principles behind race-conscious districting. This article does
not, however, call for explicit transfer of political power on the basis of
race, only race conscious decision making in districting.
[5] Harris,
Cheryl. “Whiteness As Property”. Critical
Race Theory: The Key Writings That Formed The Movement. Kimberle
Crenshaw. 1st ed. New York: New York Press, 1995. 290
[6] Harris,
Cheryl. “Whiteness As Property”. Critical
Race Theory: The Key Writings That Formed The Movement. Kimberle
Crenshaw. 1st ed. New York: New York Press, 1995. 290
[7] Harris,
Cheryl. “Whiteness As Property”. Critical
Race Theory: The Key Writings That Formed The Movement. Kimberle
Crenshaw. 1st ed. New York: New York Press, 1995. 290
[8] Harris,
Cheryl. “Whiteness As Property”. Critical
Race Theory: The Key Writings That Formed The Movement. Kimberle
Crenshaw. 1st ed. New York: New York Press, 1995. 290
[9] Kennedy,
Duncan, “A Cultural Pluralist Case for Affirmative Action in Legal Academia.Critical Race Theory: The Key Writings That
Formed The Movement. Kimberle Crenshaw. 1st ed. New York: New York
Press, 1995. 162
[10] Kennedy,
Duncan, “A Cultural Pluralist Case for Affirmative Action in Legal Academia.Critical Race Theory: The Key Writings That
Formed The Movement. Kimberle Crenshaw. 1st ed. New York: New York
Press, 1995. 162
[11] “What is
Critical Race Theory?” Form the UCLA School of Public Affairs, seehttps://spacrs.wordpress.com/what-is-critical-race-theory/
[12] See “What is
Critical Race Theory?” Form the UCLA School of Public Affairs, seehttps://spacrs.wordpress.com/what-is-critical-race-theory/. See also Godsey,
Mark A., “The Myth of Meritocracy, and the Silencing of Minority Voices: The
Need for Diversity on America’s Law Reviews” (1995). Faculty Articles and Other
Publications. Paper 84.http://scholarship.law.uc.edu/fac_pubs/84
[13] Harris,
Cheryl. “Whiteness As Property”. Critical
Race Theory: The Key Writings That Formed The Movement. Kimberle
Crenshaw. 1st ed. New York: New York Press, 1995. 288
[14] See “What is
Critical Race Theory?” Form the UCLA School of Public Affairs, seehttps://spacrs.wordpress.com/what-is-critical-race-theory/. See also
Anthology, xix-xx, on the divide between Critical Race Theory and traditional
liberalism.
[20] Mari J.
Matsuda, Public Response to Racist Speech: Considering the Victim’s Story, 87
Mich. L. Rev. 2321 (1989).
[21] For a short
review of some recent conflicts between protestors on issues of free speech,
see “Fascism at Yale”. http://hlrecord.org/2015/11/fascism-at-yale/
[22] “Free speech,
Black lives, and white fragility” by Bennett Carpenter, Duke Chronicle, January
19, 2016. http://www.dukechronicle.com/article/2016/01/free-speech-black-lives-and-white-fragility
[23] “DeCuir, J.
T., & Dixson, A. D.. (2004). “So When It Comes out, They Aren’t That
Surprised That It Is There”: Using Critical Race Theory as a Tool of Analysis
of Race and Racism in Education. Educational
Researcher, 33(5),
27.
[24]Richard Delgado
& Jean Stefancic, Critical race theory: THE CUTTING EDGE (2000)https://www.temple.edu/tempress/chapters_1100/1169_ch1.pdf xvii
[25] Richard
Delgado & Jean Stefancic, Critical race theory: THE CUTTING EDGE (2000)https://www.temple.edu/tempress/chapters_1100/1169_ch1.pdf xvii
[26] Richard
Delgado & Jean Stefancic, Critical race theory: THE CUTTING EDGE (2000)https://www.temple.edu/tempress/chapters_1100/1169_ch1.pdf xvii
[28] “DeCuir, J.
T., & Dixson, A. D.. (2004). “So When It Comes out, They Aren’t That
Surprised That It Is There”: Using Critical Race Theory as a Tool of Analysis
of Race and Racism in Education. Educational
Researcher, 33(5),
27
[29] “DeCuir, J.
T., & Dixson, A. D.. (2004). “So When It Comes out, They Aren’t That
Surprised That It Is There”: Using Critical Race Theory as a Tool of Analysis
of Race and Racism in Education. Educational
Researcher, 33(5),
28
[30]See https://reclaimharvardlaw.wordpress.com/ for the
point that Reclaim Harvard Law believes that Harvard engages in systemic racism
and exclusion. The import of personal narratives to this conclusion is evident
in the community meetings as well as personal discussions with members of the
protest movement.