Topic Background Information

Topic Background Information

 Robert J. Green Ph.D.

Assistant Professor of Communication Studes

Bloomsburg University of Pennsylvania

Critical Race Theory (CRT) is a topic that has generated a significant amount of attention and controversy across a wide range of social and political contexts. Delgado & Stefancic (2017) define CRT as a movement consisting of “activists and scholars engaged in studying and transforming the relationship among race, racism, and power” by calling into question “the very foundations of the liberal order, including equality theory, legal reasoning, Enlightenment rationalism, and neutral principles of constitutional law” (p. 2). Although the movement originally focused on the operation of racism in legal and regulatory contexts, contemporary interest in CRT has expanded across all areas of social and political life. Unsurprisingly, CRT has become yet another front in the seemingly never-ending culture wars over the direction of racial progress in society (Edsall, 2021). Recent controversies have centered on curriculum design in K-12 schools, and debaters will be asked to consider the role that instruction in CRT should play in higher education.

            There are several lines of inquiry that debaters may want to peruse as they develop their cases on the topic. A key theme developed in CRT is that racism is produced and reproduced through mundane institutional practices that give shape to and are shaped by the everyday experiences of people of color. One such practice is the bureaucratic process of curriculum design. A considerable degree of institutional power is enacted through the curricular process, and debaters will want to consider the legal, regulatory, and ideological barriers that prevent teaching and learning about CRT across all programs of study.

All debaters will want to consider the taken for granted institutional practices that shape their educational experiences. Those interested in the education field may want to dive into the nuts and bolts of the curricular process to advocate best practices of teaching and learning in CRT. Debaters will need to justify why instruction in CRT should or should not be embedded in all classes. The topic also raises issues of academic freedom, and debaters will likely need to weigh the benefits of instruction in CRT against real and perceived concerns with “cancel culture” and the apparent demise of free discussion on campus.

Debaters may also want to conduct research on CRT itself to test key assumptions made by the resolution. Given the complexity of the topic, debaters will need to define and justify their interpretation of CRT. The topic itself presumes that CRT is appropriate for the context of higher education—a presumption that debaters should be prepared to test and defend. Debaters may also ask if CRT is the best approach to take in the struggle against racism, and they also may want to consider the extent to which CRT may hinder efforts towards the development of intersectionality with feminist and/or LGBTQ+ causes.

Debaters may also want to consider what it means for universities to encourage instruction in CRT. You can do so by substituting the verb encourage with stronger alternatives like prohibit or require. How do these substitutions change the meaning and significance of the resolution? This exercise should provide rudimentary insight into the power of institutions to define reality—the experiences of teachers and learners in a university that mandates instruction in CRT would differ substantially from those that prohibit or encourage it. Consideration of such differences may provide insights that can be developed in affirmative and opposition cases.

Given the extent of social, political, and economic power at stake, debaters may want to apply the interest convergence thesis to the topic itself. According to the interest convergence thesis, “the interests of blacks in achieving racial equality will be accommodated only when it converges with the interests of whites” (Bell, 1980, p. 523). Discourses of diversity, equity, and inclusion have arguably been colonized and corporatized by elite predominantly white institutions to appear concerned with the struggle against racism while the exploitative power structures behind such discourses remain intact and unchanged (Shih, 2017). In a world where instruction in CRT is embedded across the curriculum and touted in multi-million-dollar advertising campaigns, Bell’s incisive analysis compels us to contemplate the following question—who benefits?

References

Bell, D. A. (1980). Brown v. Board of Education and the interest-convergence dilemma. Harvard Law Review, 93(3), 518–533. https://doi.org/10.2307/1340546

Delgado, R., & Stefancic, J. (Eds.). (2017). Critical race theory: An introduction. New York University Press.

Edsall, T. B. (2021, November 10). Republicans are once again heating up the culture wars. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/10/opinion/republicans-democrats-crt.html

Shih, D. (2017). A theory to better understand diversity, and who really benefits. NPR. https://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2017/04/19/523563345/a-theory-to-better-understand-diversity-and-who-really-benefits