The following is an opinion contribution and reflects the author’s views alone.
Critical Race Theory (CRT) promotes the idea that we should reexamine the role of race in American history and the current structures of power. There is no denying that racism has been a pernicious agent throughout human history and painfully remains so to this day. To claim otherwise is to look back at history with blinders. I see CRT as one of several attempts across time to take stock of what’s happened and slay the dragon once and for all. However, while I take no issue with addressing the reality of racism in this country, I do take issue with the way CRT has been put into practice.
I see the discussion on race as taking one of two forms. The first stems from a belief that American history must be taught in a way that places racism front and center, with all other philosophic and historic happenings arising from that. It sees race as the lens through which everything else must be understood. The second form highlights race and ongoing racism but acknowledges that race-based lenses are not the only ways to see the world.
When the first viewpoint is adopted, race becomes part of every single discussion; it is brought to the forefront in an extreme move to compensate for the ethical failings of this country’s past. This application of CRT reflects an attempt to weave racial undertones into every aspect of the human experience.
Look no further than the move to view math through a racial prism. A Pathway to Equitable Math Instruction defines itself as having an “integrated approach to mathematics that centers Black, Latinx, and Multilingual students in grades 6-8, addresses barriers to math equity, and aligns instruction to grade-level priority standards…[its] toolkit “strides” serve as multiple on-ramps for educators as they navigate the individual and collective journey from equity to anti-racism.” This toolkit denies that mathematics is “a pure discipline, reflective of the natural world around us, universal” and urges readers to “consider other ways of doing mathematics.”
My question is: what other way is there to do mathematics? By its very definition, mathematics is based upon rules of logic, yet the toolkit disparages mathematics in the US for favoring “logic over intuition.”
Instead of viewing math as an objective pursuit, the toolkit blames underperformance by minorities on the “reinforcing stereotypes” of “Western mathematics” inherent in the subject. It views something like the name of the “Pythagorean Theorem” as an embodiment of “White supremacy culture” and urges teachers to pose the following question to their students: “Why do you think we call it the Pythagorean theorem when it was used before he was even born? What should we call it instead?”
Parents send their children to school to learn the Pythagorean theorem and how to apply it to mathematical problems. They do not send them to school to question the standards of the name itself. There is a way to acknowledge racism without allowing it to seep into every subject area; we should champion the discussion of racism in history classrooms and policy discussions. However, it does not have a place in a sixth graders’ algebra homework.
The Mathematics Framework adopted by the California Department of Education provides an example of an equitable mathematics lesson in which “a group of students explored their family’s immigration experiences through a measurement lesson on the topic of unit conversion.” Where is the link between unit conversions and immigration? Mathematics should be divorced from politics and race; it is unnecessary to discuss unit conversions and immigration, slavery in conjunction with derivatives, or white supremacy alongside L’Hôpital’s Rule.
Yet another example of the misguided application of CRT was the reeducation camp for white men called “White Men’s Caucus on Eliminating Racism, Sexism, and Homophobia in Organizations” held by Sandia National Laboratories just two years ago. The event demonized concepts like self-confidence, bravery, and striving toward success as facets of white male culture that are “devastating” to minorities. In the training session, the men had to apologize for their privilege and write letters to women, African Americans, and other minority groups.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) hosted a training session based on the teachings of psychologist Derald Sue, who has made the claim that “individualism, the Protestant work ethic, capitalism, monotheism, and [the] written tradition” are inherently racist. You read that correctly. If you are a person of faith, you–at your very core–are racist. If you work hard, you are racist.
The session laid out examples of microaggressions, which they defined as “everyday verbal, nonverbal, and environmental slights, snubs, or insults whether intentional, unintentional, that communicated hostile, derogatory, or negative messages to target persons based solely upon their marginalized group membership.”
The handout from the DHS session provides a chart with microaggression examples and the messages they send. Here are a few:
Statement: “Where are you from or where were you born?”
Hidden message: “You are not a true American.”
Statement: “Wow. How did you become so good at math?”
Hidden message: “People of color are generally not as intelligent as Whites.”
Statement: “I believe the most qualified person should get the job.”
Hidden message: “People of color are given extra unfair benefits because of their race.”
Statement: “America is a land of opportunity”
Hidden message: “People of color are lazy and/or incompetent and need to work harder.”
While this may simply seem like a theoretical virtue-signaling exercise, it has grave consequences if applied practically; it would attach prejudiced undertones to every single word uttered by a non-minority. At its core, such a viewpoint sees race as imbued in every nook and cranny of society.
On a personal note, I, myself, have felt CRT permeate aspects of Princeton that are only tangentially–if, at all–relevant. Like many of my fellow freshmen, I participated in Princeton’s Outdoor Action orientation program at the beginning of the year. Coming into the program, I imagined that I would be engaging with the outdoors and the beauty of nature. This was mostly true; our day trips included activities like kayaking and hiking. What I did not expect was to be confronted with race-based education. As one of the evening activities, my group was shown an REI commercial highlighting Brothers of Climbing, “an organization that seeks to make the rock climbing community more diverse.”
That clip we watched, in conjunction with a handful of others, extended inequality to the outdoors. It made the claim that certain groups feel unwelcome in nature, and we must therefore work to improve equity in that arena. To that, I respond that public green spaces like parks are public: open to everyone, no matter their race, gender, or creed. We no longer live in a segregated America. I was astounded to see race injected into a non-policy, non-education-based freshman orientation program, and it further solidified my conviction that CRT is dangerous in the way it is being practiced. It breeds distrust between people who look different, shunts aside all other human traits in the service of a singular one, and demonizes core values such as aiming for success.
Racism is very much a real and present threat in our society. There is no denying that. But race does not explain every single outcome or decision in our society, nor is it the only lens through which we can view our current institutions and policies. Race should be present in the classroom–when relevant and when age-appropriate–and in policy-making institutions. It should not be taught alongside sixth grade math or in freshman orientation programs. Nor should it be seen as the driving force behind every human interaction.
(Image courtesy of Ms. Magazine)
Copyright © 2024 The Princeton Tory. All rights reserved.