Is “critical race theory” (CRT) a framework for understanding how racism has influenced American policy and systems, or is it a divisive ideology that creates conflict between racial groups? This question has sparked intense debate, particularly in education.
This spring has seen critical race theory become a prominent topic in public discourse, especially within K-12 education. Numerous state legislatures are considering or have enacted bills aimed at restricting or prohibiting its inclusion in school curricula.
However, the reality is more nuanced than the polarized viewpoints suggest. Recent years have increased public awareness of issues like housing segregation, the long-term effects of criminal justice policies from the 1990s, and the enduring legacy of slavery on Black communities in America. Yet, there remains significant disagreement about the appropriate role of government in addressing historical injustices. When education and children are brought into the discussion, the debate becomes even more charged.
School boards, superintendents, and even educators are grappling with questions about critical race theory. Experts themselves hold differing views on its precise definition and how its principles should inform educational practices and policies in K-12 settings. This explanation aims to provide a foundational understanding of the core aspects of this ongoing discussion for educators and the wider public.
Defining Critical Race Theory
Critical race theory is an academic framework developed over four decades. At its heart, CRT proposes that race is a social construct, and racism is not simply individual prejudice but is deeply ingrained within legal systems and policies.
Originating in the late 1970s and early 1980s, critical race theory emerged from legal scholars like Derrick Bell, Kimberlé Crenshaw, and Richard Delgado as a method for legal analysis.
Alt text: Historical redlining practices illustrated, showing discriminatory housing policies based on race.
A clear illustration of systemic racism is the practice of redlining in the 1930s. Government officials delineated areas, often based on racial demographics, as high-risk for financial investments. Consequently, banks systematically denied mortgages to Black residents in these redlined neighborhoods. This historical policy highlights how institutional practices can perpetuate racial inequality.
Even today, the effects of such discriminatory practices persist through seemingly race-neutral policies. For example, single-family zoning regulations, while not explicitly mentioning race, effectively restrict the construction of affordable housing in predominantly white, affluent areas. This zoning indirectly perpetuates racial segregation by limiting housing opportunities for people of color in certain neighborhoods.
CRT also draws upon intellectual traditions from sociology and literary theory, which examine the connections between political power, social structures, and language. Its concepts have broadened to influence various disciplines, including humanities, social sciences, and teacher education.
It’s crucial to distinguish between the academic understanding of critical race theory and its representation in popular media and, particularly, criticisms leveled against it, often by conservative voices. Critics argue that CRT fosters division by emphasizing group identity over shared values, categorizing individuals into “oppressor” and “oppressed” groups, and promoting intolerance.
This has resulted in significant confusion surrounding the meaning of CRT and its relationship to related concepts like “anti-racism” and “social justice,” terms with which it is frequently associated.
In some cases, the term “critical race theory” has become a broad label applied to almost any diversity and inclusion initiative, regardless of whether these programs are actually based on CRT principles.
The Heritage Foundation, a conservative organization, has linked a wide range of contemporary issues to CRT. These include the Black Lives Matter protests of 2020, LGBTQ+ student groups in schools, diversity training in workplaces, California’s ethnic studies curriculum, debates about free speech on college campuses, and even alternative disciplinary approaches in schools, such as the Promise program in Broward County, Florida, which some blame for the Parkland school shooting. The organization asserts that “CRT, when fully embraced, undermines the foundational principles of American constitutional democracy.”
This broad application of the term is similar to how the Common Core learning standards were publicly perceived, often encompassing ideas far beyond the actual standards themselves.
Does Critical Race Theory Accuse All White People of Being Racist?
A common misconception is that critical race theory labels all white individuals as racist. Instead, CRT argues that racism is woven into the fabric of everyday life and societal structures. This means that individuals, regardless of their racial identity or intentions, can make choices or participate in systems that contribute to racial inequality.
Some critics contend that CRT promotes discrimination against white people in the pursuit of racial equity. These accusations often target scholars and activists who advocate for policies that explicitly consider race to address historical disparities. Ibram X. Kendi, author of How to Be An Antiracist, is frequently cited in this context for suggesting that discrimination aimed at creating equity can be considered anti-racist.
However, this disagreement stems from differing definitions of racism. CRT emphasizes outcomes and systemic patterns, not solely individual beliefs or biases. It calls for the examination and rectification of racial disparities in outcomes. There are, however, diverse opinions among legal professionals, educators, policymakers, and the public regarding the best methods for achieving racial equity and the extent to which race should be explicitly considered in these efforts.
A helpful analogy for understanding this complex idea comes from a 2007 U.S. Supreme Court case concerning the use of race in K-12 school assignments to promote diversity. Chief Justice John Roberts famously stated, “The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” Conversely, during the same arguments, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg questioned, “It’s very hard for me to see how you can have a racial objective but a nonracial means to get there.”
These contrasting viewpoints reflect long-standing intellectual debates. Critical race theory is rooted in postmodernist thought, which often questions universal values, objective knowledge, individual meritocracy, Enlightenment rationalism, and liberalism—principles often upheld by conservatives.
Critical Race Theory in K-12 Education
In the context of K-12 education, critical race theory scholars examine how policies and practices contribute to persistent racial disparities in educational outcomes. They advocate for changes to address these inequalities. Areas of focus include racial segregation in schools, inadequate funding for schools serving predominantly Black and Latino students, disproportionate disciplinary actions against Black students, unequal access to gifted programs and selective schools, and curricula that perpetuate racist stereotypes.
It’s important to distinguish CRT from culturally relevant teaching, an educational approach that emerged in the 1990s. Culturally relevant teaching aims to affirm students’ cultural and racial backgrounds and promote rigorous academic learning. While distinct, it shares a related goal with CRT in helping students recognize and critique the root causes of social inequality in their own lives.
Alt text: Classroom illustration representing culturally responsive teaching with roots symbolizing deep connections to student backgrounds.
Many educators support culturally relevant teaching and other strategies to create inclusive and supportive school environments for Black students and other historically marginalized groups. Students of color now constitute the majority of the school-age population. However, educators may not necessarily categorize these efforts as directly related to CRT.
As one teacher educator explained, “In practice, this often translates to: ‘Have I considered the experiences of my Black students? Have I created an inclusive space where they can thrive?’ This is the level at which most teachers engage with these concepts.” This educator, like others interviewed, requested anonymity due to concerns about online harassment.
A growing concern among some critics is the false dichotomy that academic rigor and culturally responsive or anti-racist teaching are mutually exclusive. They argue that initiatives to reform grading practices or decolonize curricula will ultimately disadvantage Black students by lowering standards.
Similar to the broader debate around CRT, its portrayal in schools has often lacked nuance. A poll by Parents Defending Education, an advocacy group, claimed that some schools are teaching students that “white people are inherently privileged, while Black and other people of color are inherently oppressed and victimized,” that “achieving racial justice necessitates discriminating against white people,” and that “the United States is founded on racism.”
Much of the current controversy seems to stem not from academic scholarship, but from fears that students, particularly white students, will be exposed to harmful or demoralizing ideas.
While some school districts have issued statements or adopted policies that incorporate CRT-related language, it remains unclear to what extent educators are explicitly teaching CRT concepts or utilizing curricula that implicitly draw upon them. Experts point out that much CRT scholarship is academic and not readily accessible to K-12 teachers.
Legislation to Ban Critical Race Theory in Schools
As of mid-May, several states, including Idaho, Iowa, Oklahoma, and Tennessee, have passed legislation aimed at prohibiting or restricting the teaching of critical race theory in schools. Similar bills have been proposed in other state legislatures.
These bills are often vaguely worded, making it difficult to determine their exact scope.
For instance, it’s unclear whether a teacher discussing historical instances of state-sponsored racism, such as the Jim Crow laws that disenfranchised Black Americans and enforced segregation, would be considered in violation of these laws.
The constitutionality of these laws and whether they unduly restrict free speech are also open questions.
Enforcing these laws in the vast number of classrooms across states would be challenging. However, social studies educators worry that such legislation could have a chilling effect, leading teachers to self-censor lessons for fear of complaints from parents or administrators.
Mike Stein, an English teacher, told Chalkbeat Tennessee regarding a new law in Tennessee: “History teachers will struggle to adequately teach about events like the Trail of Tears, the Civil War, and the Civil Rights Movement. English teachers may need to avoid numerous texts by African American authors because many address racism to varying degrees.”
These laws could also be used to challenge other aspects of the curriculum, including ethnic studies programs and “action civics” initiatives that encourage students to engage with local civic issues and propose solutions.
Critical Race Theory and the Broader Culture Wars in Education
Accusations that schools are indoctrinating students with harmful ideologies are not new. Historians note that the controversy surrounding CRT is the latest manifestation of a long-standing debate.
In the early to mid-20th century, concerns centered on socialism or Marxism. Organizations like the American Legion and the John Birch Society targeted textbooks deemed too progressive, fearing they would expose students to dangerous ideas about economic inequality. Similar to the current criticisms of CRT, the underlying anxiety was about the perceived negative impact on students.
As student populations became more diverse, these debates have increasingly focused on race and representation, encompassing disagreements over multiculturalism, ethnic studies, the “canon wars” regarding literary curricula, and the “ebonics” debate about Black Vernacular English in schools.
Alt text: Revising historical narratives in social studies textbooks to include diverse perspectives and address systemic racism.
In history education, debates have revolved around balancing patriotism and American exceptionalism with a critical examination of the nation’s history of oppression and violence against Indigenous peoples and the enslavement of African Americans—reconciling American ideals with historical realities. These tensions contributed to the failure of a 1994 effort to establish national history standards.
A recent example fueling CRT criticism is the New York Times’ 1619 Project, which aimed to place the history and lasting impact of slavery, along with the contributions of Black Americans to democratic reforms, at the center of the American historical narrative.
Culture wars, historians argue, are perpetually fought within the realm of education.
As one education historian stated, “These debates are rooted in anxieties about broader societal shifts, but they are expressed through the language of schools and curriculum. The vocabulary is about education, but the underlying grammar is anxiety about changing social power dynamics.”
Explore Education Issues Further
For deeper insights into key issues in K-12 education, explore these research-based explainers from Education Week. Browse our explainers
