Is Critical Race Theory Building Racial Bridges, or Burning Them?

Is Critical Race Theory building racial Bridges, or burning Them?

By Jay Wegter

I. What is Critical Race Theory (CRT)?

1. CRT is a toxic identity scheme that has spread through every sphere of American life. It creates categories of oppressed and oppressor, which is why this ideology is the underpinning of identity politics. CRT seeks to solve concerns of racial inequality, but creates new problems such as promoting the belief that America is a fundamentally racist country, and that all institutions are designed to promote white supremacy. CRT sees every human relationship in terms of a race-based power struggle. It regards institutions such as law, education, and business as the main source of racial problems. The solution CRT promotes is the overthrow of the present form of those institutions.ⁱ

2. CRT assumes that racism is present in everything—this sentiment is held under a doctrine known as “systemic racism.” CRT writers defend their assertion that “systemic racism” exists in the following ways. The major tenets of CRT are first, racism is ordinary, not aberrational. In other words, “[racism] is the usual way society does business, the common everyday experience of most people of color in this country.”ⁱⁱ Second, our nation’s “system of white-on-color ascendancy serves important purposes, both psychic and material.” “This means that racism’s ordinariness makes it difficult to cure and to address.” [And,] “because racism advances the interests of both white elites (materially), and working class people (psychically), large segments of society have little incentive to eradicate it.”ⁱⁱⁱ Thus, CRT argues that because racism is engrained and ubiquitous, it is difficult to rectify because it so cleverly conceals itself.

3. CRT is rooted in cultural Marxism. In classical Marxism industry leaders were separated from the oppressed (those who toiled as their laborers). But, in cultural Marxism, the divides fall along the lines of race, gender, and sexual orientation. If a person is a member of an ‘oppressed class’, then he or she instinctively knows if they are being oppressed or judged. Even a glance or a look can label a person as bigoted, as transphobic, and/or as racist. In CRT, identity is determined by the group to which one belongs. And, according to CRT, one’s identity is defined by their group’s shared struggle.ⁱᵛ

4. Karl Marx was the first critical theorist speculating how power operates to create social disadvantages and inequality. One of the main ideas/premises of CRT is the social binary of opposites. In other words, for every group, whether race, ethnicity, class, gender, or sexual orientation, there is an opposing or oppressive group. CRT teaches that oppression influences everything. The idea is that the oppressed have not rebelled yet because they have absorbed the ideas of the oppressive class. They need to wake up to oppression, and then revolt against their oppressors. They need to be liberated because unbeknown to them, they are actually complicit with their oppressors. Thus, in CRT’s world pervasive racism all truth claims are a bid for power.

5. According to CRT, your perspective on truth is conditioned by your social location (as oppressor or oppressed).ᵛ There are subconscious reasons to adhere to your social location: if you are a member of an oppressive group (a privileged group), you are probably blind to its oppressive nature. That is why the oppressed are better able to see the truth. An appeal to data, evidence, and science is actually yielding to ‘the master’s tools of oppression’, which are used to justify oppression. CRT submits that there are other ways of knowing truth (i.e. by one’s experience of being oppressed). CRT rejects white male objective ways of knowing such as Scripture, logic, absolute truth claims, empirical data, etc. The axis of race, class, gender, and sexual orientation is used to fight hard data and logic (objective truth) in order to dismantle colonial ideology. Colonialism is associated with “white privilege’. Colonialism is defined as the establishment of control of a territory, claiming it for itself, by a sovereign power over an subordinate people which are segregated and separated from the ruling power.ᵛⁱ CRT’s epistemology is openly hostile to Christ’s claim to be the Word of God, the Logos. Christ states that He is the sole source of absolute truth (Jn 8:12, 31-32; 14:6). His self-identification as the Son of God is inseparable from His truth claims (Jn 12:44-50). Christ declares that His words are true and authoritative because He speaks what the Father commanded Him to say (vv. 49, 50); to reject Christ’s words is to reject God (vv. 45, 48).

6. The media is pushing the CRT narrative so strongly that it is shaping people’s self-perception. If people hear often enough that they are oppressed, they may begin to believe it. They’ve been taught to trust their own heart in terms of what is racist. Jeremiah 17:9 makes it clear that trusting one’s own heart is a formula for self-deception. As the media ‘carpet bombs’ us with the message that people of color are oppressed, it is only a matter of time before this narrative is treated as reliable information. A recent study lends credence to this for there is a growing trend among students to sit together according to race in school cafeterias when formerly, there was a comfortable racial mix socially. Pastor Voddie Baucham exposes the falsehood of CRT’s message of widespread oppression: America’s strength is tied closely to the fact that it is the most culturally diverse nation on earth. The fact that the U.S.A. is an ethnic melting pot is a significant part of its strength, for no culture has all of the world’s knowledge, creativity, and talent. Our nation’s ethnic diversity, vast opportunity, freedoms, and door of legal immigration is a testimony to the providence of God (Acts 17:24-28).ᵛⁱⁱ

II. What Premises or Assumptions are espoused by CRT?

Premise 1: Oppressor vs. oppressed. “Our individual identity, who we are as individuals, is inseparable from our group identity.” In particular, our individual identity depends on whether we are part of a dominant, oppressor group, or a subordinate, oppressed group with respect to a given identity marker like race, class, gender, physical ability, or age. Peggy McIntosh, who popularized the phrase ‘white privilege’ in a 1988 paper, writes “My schooling gave me no training in seeing myself as an oppressor.” In other words, she was an oppressor, but she didn’t know it. “I was taught [wrongly] to see myself as an individual whose moral state depended on her individual moral will.” According to CRT, it’s not possible for you to say, “Ok, I understand that there are racist white people out there. . . But that’s not me. I should be treated as an individual, not just as a member of a group.”ᵛⁱⁱⁱ

Premise 2: Oppression through hegemonic power. “Oppressor groups subjugate oppressed groups through the exercise of hegemonic power.” Hegemonic power is the ability to impose your group’s values, expectations, and norms on the rest of society. In this way, hegemonic power is distinguished from money, or influence, or mere numbers. Thus, in relationships between groups that define one another (male/female, employer/employee), the dominant group is valued more highly. Dominant groups set the norms by which the minority group is judged.ⁱˣ Given CRT’s premise, we can see why men or whites or heterosexuals or the rich are classified as ‘oppressors.’ When CR Theorists make this claim, they are not necessarily saying that all men or all whites or all heterosexuals engage in “prolonged or cruel unjust treatment or control” (that’s the dictionary definition of oppression). What they’re arguing is that these dominant groups have imposed their values on society. That’s why they can say that a man is an oppressor even if he has never treated a woman cruelly or unkindly in his entire life.ˣ

Premise 3: Liberation as a moral duty. “Our fundamental moral duty is freeing groups from oppression.” Feminist author Suzanne Pharr states: “These political times call for renewed dialogue about, and commitment to, the politics of liberation. . .Liberation requires a struggle against discrimination based on race, class, gender, sexual identity, ableism (able-bodied people), and age.” She’s writing that in 1996. But, consider the implications of this liberation agenda. Notice that the activity of ‘liberating groups from oppression’ is CRT’s fundamental ‘moral duty’. It’s very rare for proponents of CR Theory to explicitly affirm or promote moral duties like honesty, kindness, patience, chastity, marital fidelity, or self-control. Even when they talk about money, the duties of personal charity, personal generosity, and personal giving are rarely discussed. Instead, the discourse centers on dismantling unjust structures.ˣⁱ This focus on group liberation can have serious consequences. It has been said, preach rights long enough, and you’ll get a violent revolution; preach responsibility and you’ll get a revival. Our Lord brings ‘light’ to darkened regions, not by revolution, but through the regeneration, reformation, and revival that our Savior’s gospel brings (Mt 4:14-16).

Premise 4: Lived experience vs. objective evidence. “‘Lived experience’ is more important than objective evidence in understanding oppression.” Claim the proponents of CRT, “The idea that objectivity is best reached only through rational thought is a specifically Western and masculine way of thinking.”ˣⁱⁱ So, what do CR Theorists propose to supplement rational thought? Answer: story, personal testimony, and lived experience. CRT regards ‘lived experience’ to outweigh evidence. Thus, people from oppressed groups are viewed as having special insight into truth that is fundamentally unavailable to people from oppressor groups. If you are not a member of an oppressed group, you are expected to listen and learn from oppressed people; you are not permitted to challenge their claims. We can see this premise at work in the abortion debate. It’s common for men who attempt to discuss abortion to be told: “No Uterus, No opinion.” You can even buy T-shirts emblazoned with that slogan. Why? One reason is that a man, as an oppressor, cannot understand the lived experience of women, who are oppressed. Therefore, he should have no opinion on what are considered to be “women’s issues.” As an ‘oppressor’, he must defer to the opinion of the oppressed group.

Premise 5: Oppression is hidden beneath ‘objectivity’. “Oppressor groups hide their oppression under the guise or pretense of objectivity.” However, critical theory encourages an alternate approach to truth claims that is very popular but is logically invalid. According to the view of Premise 5, when someone makes a truth claim, the first question asked by critical theory is not, “is this claim true?” but, “what incentives does this person have to make this claim? What social or political agenda motivates this statement? How does this statement function to preserve his power and privilege?” In C.S. Lewis’ work he exposes the logical fallacy of dismissing a claim as false because of the assumed motives of the person making the claim. In the same way, CRT bypasses the question of whether the claim is true and focuses the discussion on the claimant’s group identity. No doubt the reader has noticed how pervasive these ideas (5 premises) really are in movies, in music, on social media, on the news, and in lecture halls. As a function of Christian apologetics, consider utilizing these premises as a helpful tool for locating and discerning the worldview elements of CRT.ˣⁱⁱⁱ

III. Why is it important to know that CRT is a Worldview?

1. The most fundamental problem with CRT is that it functions as a worldview that is hostile to Scripture. It seeks to answer basic questions about life and reality. Who are we? What is our fundamental problem as human beings? What is the solution to that problem? What is our principle moral duty? What is our purpose in life? The story that CRT tells begins not with creation, but with oppression. The omission of a creation element is very important because it changes the answer to the question: “who are we?” In CRT’s worldview, there is no transcendent Creator who has a purpose and a design for our lives and our identities. Thus, we don’t primarily exist in relation to God, but in relation to other people and to other groups. Our identity is not defined as God’s creatures. Instead, we define ourselves in terms of race, class, sexuality, and gender identity. Oppression, not sin, is our fundamental problem. At this juncture it is useful to ask: does an erroneous worldview result in destructive ‘solutions’ to perceived problems? Richard Weaver, author of Ideas have Consequences would say, ‘yes’. Back in 1948 he wrote the following: the fight (against distinctions among people) takes the shape of undefined egalitarianism which breaks down society. Egalitarianism is harmful because it always operates behind a cloak of a ‘redress of injustice’—but comity (a friendly social atmosphere) rests not on the notion of equality but upon fraternity. This antedates history—goes deeper in human sentiment. Brotherhood has obligations which equality knows nothing of such as respect, honor, protection, status, hierarchy in family, etc.ˣⁱᵛ Out of CRT’s errant diagnosis comes the proposed solution of activism, structural overthrow, raising awareness, and the dismantling of hegemonic (oppressive) power. CRT considers it one’s moral duty and primary purpose in life to work for the liberation of all oppressed groups so that we can achieve a state of equality.ˣᵛ By way of contrast, consider how the gospel identifies humanity itself, mankind’s greatest problem, and our greatest need (see # 2 below).

2. Christianity tells one comprehensive, overarching narrative about reality in four basic acts or ‘beats’ of redemptive history: creation, fall, redemption, and restoration. Who are we? We are the creatures of a holy, good, and loving Creator God (Gen 1:26-28). What is our fundamental problem as human beings? We have rebelled against God (Rom 3:9-23). What is the solution to our problem? God sent Jesus to bear the penalty of our rebellion that He might rescue us (1 Tim 1:15). What is our primary moral duty? To love God. What is our purpose in life? To glorify God (1 Cor 10:31). This is the basic story that Christianity tells us and is the worldview grid through which we ought to interpret everything else.ˣᵛⁱ The antithesis is clear, Christianity and CRT answer our most fundamental questions about reality in mutually exclusive ways. CRT does not contain elements which make for racial reconciliation and harmony. And, any attempts to merge CRT and Christianity would force us to choose between these worldviews in terms of values, priorities, and ethics. When the assumptions of CRT are absorbed, it inevitably erodes core biblical truths. In our culture, CRT is competing with Christianity for pre-eminence. These are two worldviews fighting one another. In the end, only one will win.ˣᵛⁱⁱ

IV. How does CRT conflict with Biblical Christianity?

1. CRT takes an approach to truth claims that is in conflict with Christianity. Normally, when someone makes a claim about what is true, we require the claim to be supported by reason, logic, and argument. We test that claim. One of the driving forces behind the Reformation was the idea that our theology has to be reformed to, and brought under the authority of Scripture. To do that, we need to be able to test theological claims against the Bible. CRT short-circuits this process. CRT’s methods of determining truth are less than honest. For example, if a person from an ‘oppressor group’ suggests CRT’s views are unbiblical, they can be dismissed as trying to maintain their privilege. Do you think that the Bible teaches that abortion is wrong? That’s because “you’re trying to control women’s bodies.” Do you think that the Bible teaches that homosexuality is a sin? “You’re motivated by homophobia.” Do you think that the Bible teaches that husbands have the responsibility to lead their family? That’s because “you’re trying to preserve male supremacy.” CRT is not appealing to argument, or evidence, or Scripture. It is dishonest for CRT to seek to unearth hidden motives so that the claims of their opponents can then be ignored.ˣᵛⁱⁱⁱ

2. CRT is built on the rejection of all hegemonic power. It sees singular narratives and a singular set of values and norms as inherently oppressive (in contrast to diverse narratives and values). In other words, the absolute truth of Scripture and the transcendent nature of its moral standard is regarded as an exercise in hegemonic power. Thus, biblical theism is the opposite of CRT’s view, for our Triune God and His authoritative Word is the fixed focal point of reality. The Bible is one immense, colossal hegemonic discourse from start to finish. Hegemonic power (God’s sovereignty and Christ’s ‘epistemic Lordship’) means that God has all the power in the universe. God has told the true story of reality in the Bible. That means there is one true story of religion, one true story of morality, one true story of sexuality, one true story of gender, and so forth. While Christians can and should celebrate the diversity that God has created with respect to non-moral issues, like food, music, styles of dress, and the cultural arts, we cannot embrace diversity of doctrine or moral values. For example, Christians can’t celebrate a diversity of views with respect to the deity of Christ or the sanctity of human life. There is only one true story of reality and only one valid set of moral values: God’s. From the perspective of CRT, this idea is completely unacceptable.ˣⁱˣ We as believers in Christ Jesus assert: “There is one body and one Spirit, just as also you were called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all who is over all and through all and in all” (Eph 4:4-6).

3. CRT assumes an adversarial relationship between individuals that is profoundly antithetical to Christianity. CRT differentiates identity groups into ‘oppressor’ and ‘oppressed.’ Conversely, if all human beings shared some fundamental identity marker, that fact would undermine the dichotomy between oppressor and oppressed and would call into question the foundations of CRT. Yet Christianity offers not just one, but three of these fundamental identity markers, which are shared by human beings across lines of race, class, and gender. We share a fundamental identity first in creation, then in universal sin, and then, for Christians in redemption.ˣˣ What is our chief ‘identity marker’ according to the Bible? All human beings are made in the image of God and therefore possess equal value and dignity (Gen 1:27; Jas 3:9-10). This idea forms a basis for solidarity between the powerful and the powerless, which threatens the divisions introduced by CRT. The Christian doctrine of sin teaches that human beings are united in their rebellion against God. We share a ‘solidarity in sin’ just as we share a solidarity in the image of God. To the extent that our identity is rooted in our common rebellion and our common need for mercy, that will undermine the sharp line that CRT draws between victims and victimizers. When Paul states in Galatians 3:28 that in Christ there is no male, female, slave, or free, he is indicating that for Christians, the divisions between male and female, Jew and Greek, slave and free are all broken down in terms of access to God. For, all believers possess spiritual equality. These differences are not erased in redemption, but in terms of the practice of true religion, they are demoted in importance.

4. CRT promotes moral asymmetry (a different set of morals for different groups). CRT’s designation of some individuals as oppressed and other as oppressors leads CR Theorists to insist on a moral asymmetry between these groups. So, what constitutes immoral behavior for an individual from an oppressor group can be moral for an individual in an oppressed group. CRT and Christianity are in conflict not just with respect to a few isolated issues, but with respect to basic questions of morality, epistemology, identity, and power. It is impossible to reconcile the two worldviews. To the extent we adopt the premises of CRT, we will have to abandon basic tenets of Christianity and vice versa.ˣˣⁱ

V. What is the bitter fruit of CRT?

1. Some of the dangers and consequences inherent in CRT are: a) It teaches that because of one’s ethnicity, he or she instinctively knows what racism (or oppression) looks like. Knowledge is intuitive, it is not gained by the Word of God. Because of my position as a minority, I know oppression, I don’t need evidence for it. If you are a member of an oppressed group, no one needs to teach you. b) It compromises relationships. It offers a false source of unity (group identity). It provides a faulty litmus test for genuine relationships. c) It has a heretical idea about guilt and innocence. It suggests that through your parents you have inherited either guilt or innocence. If you are white, it is impossible not to be a racist; if you are black, you cannot be a racist. d) It teaches white self-hate. Groups that are privileged oppress without knowing they do. You must be taught how racist you really are because you are locked into white privilege. “If you are white, you enjoy the benefits of whiteness automatically . . . no matter your social or economic standing . . .” As a result of your willingness to accept white culture, you experience “white privilege.” This leads you to conspire to keep these benefits which critical whiteness scholars call, “white complicity.”ˣˣⁱⁱ e) It offers a false repentance in which one chooses penance concerning one’s white privilege. This self-flagellation is a type of ‘worship’. It is atonement as activism. Racism is a new unpardonable sin. But, this cult of atonement never really offers full forgiveness. Even if one becomes a zealous anti-racism activist, in the final analysis, a white person will find absolution out of reach, and unattainable. This actually drives people further and further apart into this form of religious radicalism.ˣˣⁱⁱⁱ In Proverbs 6:15 and 19, God tells us that the activity of driving people apart through the spread of discord and strife is an abomination.

2. The goal of CRT is to transform society by disrupting ‘oppressive structures’ in order to reach social justice. CRT wants to upend society in order to create a socialist egalitarian utopia. According to CRT, you won’t get social justice until you’ve torn down the idea that western thought is supreme. Whiteness must be torn down like a system of idolatry. CRT’s approach involves the enlistment of allies by appealing to people’s compassion, “Don’t you want to be anti-racist too?” “Won’t you take a stand against oppression?” After all, who in the rising generation wants to risk being called, anti-choice, anti-woman, anti-black, anti-gay, or transphobic? The peer pressure is great; it’s difficult for young people to verbally get behind Christian worldview. Think how hard it is for high school students when their friends are wearing Black Lives Matter shirts and rainbow stickers. Pro-CRT slogans abound, encouraging people to be pro-oppressed, “Stand up to a bully.”ˣˣⁱᵛ Our Lord does not permit His people to straddle a fence. Here is what He says about living a life in which we confess Him as Lord and Savior: “Therefore everyone who confesses Me before men, I will also confess him before My Father who is in heaven. But whoever denies Me before men, I will also deny him before My Father who is in heaven” (Mt 10:32-33).

3. CRT demands that “we should never challenge ‘lived experience.’” This claim is so popular in our culture. Consider how the following declarations express CRT’s perspective: “As a woman, I know that our society is deeply sexist.” “As a black man, I know that our society is deeply racist.” “As a lesbian, I know that sexual orientation is fixed from birth.” “As a Sufi Muslim, I know that Islam is true.” “As a Hindu, I know that all religions are paths to the divine.” If you accept the premise that the ‘lived experience’ of subordinate groups should never be challenged, then you will have to accept all of these claims. But, as Christ’s followers we can’t allow ‘lived experience’ to take precedence over Scripture and over evidence.

VI. What can true believers do in response to CRT?

1. One of the ways Christians can oppose these lies is by using the phrase, here are ideas I don’t affirm: a) It is not good for you to want to dismantle the nuclear family. b) Out of love I want to share with you what is good and beautiful as a Christian. c) CRT is not a bridge to racial reconciliation. It opposes Christianity and it functions as a worldview that divides people by superficial characteristics. It makes identity flow from different groups vying for power. d) Queer theory is a part of CRT’s ‘baggage’, it proposes that gender binary (heterosexuality) is itself oppressive because it marginalizes same-sex relationships. e) CRT has an epistemology that says the way you know truth is not by Scripture but by your social location. According to CRT’s epistemology, truth is based upon a social reality to which a white male is blinded. This epistemology is inherently divisive to the life of the church because it states that whites are too fragile to handle the truth about their racism. Symptoms of accepting CRT’s assumptions include generalizing, withdrawing, arguing, and forming sects.ˣˣᵛ

2. Inform people who accept CRT’s premises that they are not merely adopting a few new beliefs about politics or racial reconciliation, they are adopting a new worldview, which has been gradually eroding their Christian worldview. By showing people how to recognize the fundamental premises of CRT, they can be equipped to evaluate CRT’s assertions carefully and biblically.ˣˣᵛⁱ In the epistles of 1 and 2 John, there are severe warnings directed toward those who abandon the doctrine of Christ. “For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. This is the deceiver and the antichrist. Watch yourselves, that you do not lose what we have accomplished, but that you may receive a full reward. Anyone who goes too far and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God; the one who abides in the teaching, he has both the Father and the Son. If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house, and do not give him a greeting; for the one who gives him a greeting participates in his evil deeds” (2 Jn 7-11).

3. Know the differences between God’s truth and CRT’s assumptions. First, God’s commands directed to particular groups never violate God’s universal commands to all Christians. When Christians are told to speak the truth in love or to let no unclean speech come out of our mouths, that applies to all Christians, not just to privileged Christians (Eph 4:29). Second, God’s particular commands are based on roles, not power differentials. He gives some particular commands to parents, to children, to men, or to women, but never to ‘oppressed groups’ and ‘oppressor groups’ as such. Third, when the Bible does give particular commands to certain demographic groups, it affirms that Christians should show respect to authority structures (Rom 13:1-7; 1 Pet. 2:13-15).ˣˣᵛⁱⁱ

4. Know the source of our unity as believers. CRT insists on ‘solidarity in oppression’ while Christianity insists on ‘solidarity in redemption.’ Christians must insist that we fundamentally and irreducibly relate to one another not as oppressed and oppressor, but as brothers and sisters who have been (past tense) reconciled to one another in Christ. Believers have a solidarity that is so close, that they are described as “members of one another” (Eph 4:25). According to the Bible, all human beings are made in God’s image, all human beings are naturally dead in sin, and all human beings need salvation in Christ. These biblical doctrines of actual human solidarity are radically subversive to artificial sources of solidarity such as racism, sexism, and classism (and to every false source of solidarity proposed in CRT’s worldview).ˣˣᵛⁱⁱⁱ

5. Learn how to respond to CRT’s assumption that power imbalances are inherently bad and should be dismantled because they perpetuate privilege. This claim is incorrect because God’s infinite power is not only unassailable but unequivocally good. Yet many Christians still assume that human power imbalances are inherently bad. Here are questions you may ask to expose the error that all human power balances are bad: Should we reject private property because it perpetuates economic privilege? Should we reject male eldership because it perpetuates male privilege? Should we reject traditional marriage because it perpetuates heteronormativity? Should we reject the connection between sex and gender because it perpetuates cisgender (heterosexual) privilege? Should we stop preaching about biblical morality or about the exclusivity of Christ, so that non-Christians aren’t marginalized?ˣˣⁱˣ

6. We can fight back by speaking up: CRT’s group labeling and blaming is, in practice, the rejection of individual freedom and personal responsibility. It divides people into racial groups, pitting them against each other. It judges guilt and innocence based on race or sexual orientation. This threatens the best ideals of the American founding. Investigate what is happening in your local public schools, find out what curriculum teachers are using for civics, history, and English.ˣˣˣ Consider what took place at an elementary school in Cupertino, California. The math teacher forced a class of third-graders to deconstruct their racial identities, then rank themselves according to their “power and privilege.” The students were to create an “identity map,” listing their race, class, gender, religion, family structure, and other characteristics. The teacher explained that the students live in a “dominant culture” of “white, middle class, cisgender, educated, Christian, English speaker[s],” who, “created and maintained” this culture in order “to hold power and stay in power.” The teacher indicated that “folks who do not benefit from their social identities, who are in the subordinate culture, have little to no privilege and power.”ˣˣˣⁱ Students were instructed to deconstruct their own intersectional identities by circling the identities that hold privilege and power. The presentation included a paragraph about transgenderism and nonbinary sexuality. Imagine how this indoctrination in CRT’s worldview would affect an impressionable third-grader.ˣˣˣⁱⁱ

7. Know the fallacious ideas that have contributed to poverty in the inner cities. Theodore Dalrymple in his book, Life at the bottom, the Worldview that makes the Underclass, states that, “poverty is caused more by a person’s worldview than by their lack of goods or money.” “Most of the pathology exhibited by the underclass has its origin in ideas that have filtered down from the intelligentsia. Of nothing is this more true than the system of sexual relations that now prevails in the underclass”—with the result that in the hospital where Dalrymple serves, 70% of the births are illegitimate. If blame is to be apportioned, it is the intellectuals who deserve the most of it. For, in terms of the consequences of their ideas, they have preferred to avert their gaze. Their vaunted ideas about sexual freedom have been one of the greatest contributors to poverty in the inner city. “Intellectuals in the 20ᵗʰ Century sought to free our sexual relations from all social, contractual, moral obligations, and meaning whatsoever so that henceforth only raw sexual desire would count in our decision-making. The poor bought into this package and suffer accordingly.”ˣˣˣⁱⁱⁱ In addition to destructive ideas about sexual liberty, Dalrymple identifies additional erroneous concepts that generate poverty: 1) Children do not need two parents.

2. No stigma should be attached to any behavior (a symptom of the ‘rush from judgment’ mindset). 3) Eliminate the word ‘pupil’ replacing it with ‘student’ (implying that the student, no matter how young, is the evaluator of his or her educational experience). 4) Liberty is found in abandoning all convention and social norms. 5) Take pride in your culture, do not waste time studying English, grammar, and writing.
3. In order to make your case for personal entitlement, present yourself as an exploited, aggrieved victim that is incapable of initiating positive change.ˣˣˣⁱᵛ In conclusion, rather than creating a pathway to racial harmony, CRT is more like a well-stocked arsonist—possessing all of the philosophical elements necessary to burn every bridge of racial reconciliation and harmony.

End Notes:

i Heritage Foundation, “Critical Race Theory”
ii Richard Delgado and Jean Stefancic, Critical Race Theory: An Introduction, in James Lindsay, “What is Critical Race Theory?”
New Discourses, January 10, 2021
iii Ibid.
iv Voddie Baucham, “Ethnic Gnosticism”
v Ibid.
vi Allie Beth Stuckey Podcast, ‘Relatable’ with guest, Neil Shenvi
vii Voddie Baucham, “Ethnic Gnosticism”
viii Neil Shenvi, Apologetics, Christianity and Critical Theory – Part 1 Defend ’19 conference
ix Robin DiAngelo, White Fragility, in Neil Shenvi – Part 1
x Neil Shenvi, Apologetics, Christianity and Critical Theory – Part 1
xi Ibid.
xii Margaret Anderson and Patricia Collins, Race, Class, Gender, in Shenvi, Apologetics, Part 1
xiii Neil Shenvi, Apologetics, Christianity and Critical Theory – Part 1
xiv Richard Weaver, Ideas have Consequences, p. 41
xv Neil Shenvi, Apologetics, Christianity and Critical Theory – Part 2
xvi Ibid.
xvii Ibid.
xviii Ibid.
xix Ibid.
xx Ibid.
xxi Ibid.
xxii James Lindsay, “Why Nobody is Systemically Racist,” New Discourses, July 9, 2020
xxiii Voddie Baucham, “Ethnic Gnosticism”
xxiv Allie Beth Stuckey, Podcast ‘Relatable’, with guest Neil Shenvi
xxv Ibid.
xxvi Neil Shenvi, Apologetics, Christianity and Critical Theory – Part 1
xxvii Ibid.
xxviii Neil Shenvi, Apologetics, Christianity and Critical Theory – Part 2
xxix Allie Beth Stuckey, Podcast ‘Relatable’, with guest Neil Shenvi
xxx Heritage Foundation, “Critical Race Theory”
xxxi Christopher F. Rufo, “Woke Elementary,” City Journal, January 13, 2021
xxxii Ibid.
xxxiii Theodore Dalrymple, Life at the Bottom, the Worldview that makes the Underclass (Chicago, IL, Ivan R. Dee, 2002), x, in
David Noebel, Understanding Times, The Collision of Today’s competing Worldviews, p. 357
xxxiv Theodore Dalrymple, interview by the Heritage Foundation, www.heritage.org, “The Worldview that makes the Elites”