Kansas conservatives don’t realize ‘critical race theory’ is a critique of liberalism

In September 2020, the Trump administration released a memorandum directing that “federal agencies cease and desist” any training on “critical race theory.” Since then, so-called “CRT” has become a political flashpoint. The governor-elect of Virginia, Glenn Youngkin vowed to “ban critical race theory on Day One.” Here in Kansas, state Attorney General Derek Schmidt has made it the cornerstone of his gubernatorial campaign, calling CRT “left-wing political activism masquerading as education.” As a professor of African American literature in Kansas, I can’t help but see the irony. What neoconservatives don’t understand is that critical race theory is a critique of liberalism.

The father of the actual concept of critical race theory, Derrick Bell, was an NAACP lawyer who worked to integrate schools. His work contributed to the Supreme Court’s decision in Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka. In the aftermath, as a professor of law, Bell observed that this landmark decision was not as effective as he’d hoped. In some cases, instead of integrating schools, it triggered white flight and divestment in majority Black schools. Out of this came critical race theory, criticism of a liberal order that creates laws less than effective at addressing racial inequity. The concept identifies the systemic racism that led to white flight and divestment. This is not to say that Brown v. Board was a bad decision. It is to say that we have the power to create more nuanced policy to address this kind of systemic racism.

Bell’s successors have continued to be critical of liberalism. They call out white progressives who exhibit the defensiveness referred to as “white fragility” whenever confronted with information about racial inequality, and they continue to identify deficiencies in liberal policies.

Not only is critical race theory critical of liberalism, but the Kansas State Board of Education has made it clear that the concept is not even taught in Kansas public schools. The focus on a false description of critical race theory is a race-baiting tactic and, as Gov. Laura Kelly has pointed out, a big “nothing burger.” When a neoconservative politician promises to ban CRT from public schools, it is not only ironic — it distracts from the question of how to design policy that is both politically feasible and that will help people in need. This is far more important, and more interesting, than whether critical race theory should be part of employee training or taught in public schools, especially when it isn’t.

Our focus should be on what type of policy will enable us to move forward. Otherwise, we’re sticking our heads in the sand, ignoring problems that will not go away on their own. The question is whether to do it with universal or specific policy. Universal policy intends to help all Americans in need, regardless of race. Policy specific to race intends to zero in on persistent problems such as the disproportionately high percentage of Black people living in poverty. Barack Obama is a proponent of universal policy. In his book “The Audacity of Hope,” he writes, “Rightly or wrongly, white guilt has largely exhausted itself in America.” This is one reason why he makes the case for universal policy. He argues that policy specific to race is not politically feasible and will not generate the necessary support to make long-term, positive change.

Critical race theory reveals the nuances we should pay attention to, the pros and cons of universal versus race-specific policy. It shows us that “color blindness,” or treating all people the same under the law, can be commendable except when doing so forces us to ignore exactly who the people in need of help are. However, the concept also recognizes that advances in policy have come when the interests of Black and white people converge.

So, given the state of politics in Kansas and the rest of America, which kind of policy lies in our future: universal or specific? Should we continue to confront “white fragility” and pursue race-specific policy? Or is this fragility evidence that white guilt has indeed exhausted itself — and that in an era as divisive as ours, we’d do better to pursue universal policy?