There is a fundamental contradiction between the philosophical and analytical foundations of Critical Race Theory (CRT) and its policy conclusions. This reveals the true historical role of CRT...
This article seems confused (or I am confused). Granted that CRT is a break from black nationalism; but why should activists be ridiculed as seeking crumbs if they are reconciled to integration and believe that policy measures can close the inequality gap? Having said that, I don’t think they are remotely realistic about policy, so it makes sense that they end up fighting for actual crumbs like Affirmative Action at top Universities, which benefits few black people. They also tend to overstate the impact of things like red lining, lack of access to the G.I. Bill, etc. And, of course, they ignore IQ differences like Dracula avoids sunlight.
This article seems confused (or I am confused). Granted that CRT is a break from black nationalism; but why should activists be ridiculed as seeking crumbs if they are reconciled to integration and believe that policy measures can close the inequality gap? Having said that, I don’t think they are remotely realistic about policy, so it makes sense that they end up fighting for actual crumbs like Affirmative Action at top Universities, which benefits few black people. They also tend to overstate the impact of things like red lining, lack of access to the G.I. Bill, etc. And, of course, they ignore IQ differences like Dracula avoids sunlight.