The term “critical race theory” has surged into public discourse, particularly in the realm of K-12 education, sparking intense debate. Is critical race theory (CRT) a framework for understanding how systemic racism has shaped American policies, or is it a divisive ideology that unfairly pits groups against each other? This question has sharply divided liberals and conservatives, leading to legislative battles and heated community discussions.
This explainer aims to provide clarity amidst the confusion. Events of recent years have undeniably brought issues of racial inequality to the forefront, from housing segregation to the long shadow of discriminatory criminal justice policies and the enduring legacy of slavery. However, consensus on the appropriate governmental role in addressing these historical injustices remains elusive. The introduction of children and education into this complex equation further intensifies the debate.
School boards, superintendents, and educators are increasingly facing inquiries about critical race theory. Even experts disagree on its precise definition and how its principles should inform educational practices. This article serves as an entry point to understanding the core elements of this critical and often misunderstood discussion.
Defining Critical Race Theory
Critical race theory (CRT) is an academic framework developed over four decades ago. At its heart, CRT proposes that race is a social construct, not a biological reality. Furthermore, it argues that racism is not merely the result of individual prejudices, but is deeply ingrained in legal systems and public policies.
Emerging from legal scholarship in the late 1970s and early 1980s, CRT was pioneered by legal scholars such as Derrick Bell, Kimberlé Crenshaw, and Richard Delgado. These scholars sought to understand how racial inequality persists even in the post-Civil Rights era.
Illustration depicting the concept of critical race theory, highlighting its academic roots and relevance to understanding systemic racism.
A key historical example often cited in CRT is redlining. In the 1930s, government officials drew red lines on maps around neighborhoods considered financial risks, often explicitly due to the racial makeup of their residents. This practice led banks to deny mortgages to Black people in these redlined areas, perpetuating racial segregation and wealth disparities.
Even today, the effects of such discriminatory practices are felt through seemingly race-neutral policies. For example, single-family zoning laws, while not explicitly mentioning race, effectively prevent the construction of affordable housing in affluent, predominantly white neighborhoods. This, in turn, hinders racial desegregation efforts and maintains existing patterns of inequality.
CRT also draws upon intellectual traditions from sociology and literary theory, which explored the connections between power, social structures, and language. Its influence has extended beyond legal studies into fields like humanities, social sciences, and teacher education.
It is crucial to distinguish this academic understanding of CRT from its often simplified or distorted portrayals in popular discourse, particularly by conservative critics. Critics frequently argue that CRT promotes harmful dynamics by emphasizing group identity over shared humanity, dividing society into “oppressor” and “oppressed” categories, and fostering intolerance.
This divergence in understanding has created significant confusion about CRT’s actual meaning and its relationship to related concepts like “anti-racism” and “social justice,” terms with which it is often mistakenly equated. In some cases, the term “critical race theory” has become a blanket term, applied to any diversity and inclusion initiative, regardless of its direct connection to CRT scholarship.
Organizations like the Heritage Foundation have broadly attributed various contemporary issues to CRT, including the Black Lives Matter protests of 2020, LGBTQ+ student groups, diversity training programs, ethnic studies curricula, debates on free speech in universities, and even alternative disciplinary approaches in schools. They argue that “when followed to its logical conclusion, CRT is destructive and rejects the fundamental ideas on which our constitutional republic is based.”
This expansion of the term’s meaning is similar to how the Common Core learning standards, initially a specific set of educational guidelines, became a catch-all phrase for broader educational reforms and anxieties.
Addressing Misconceptions: Racism and White People
A common misconception is that critical race theory asserts that all white people are inherently racist. This is not accurate. Instead, CRT argues that racism is woven into the fabric of everyday life. Therefore, individuals, whether white or non-white, can make choices that inadvertently perpetuate racism, even without conscious racist intent.
Some critics claim that CRT advocates for discrimination against white people to achieve racial equity. These accusations often target proponents of policies that explicitly consider race to address historical disadvantages. Ibram X. Kendi, author of How to Be An Antiracist, is frequently cited in this context, as he suggests that discrimination aimed at creating equity can be considered anti-racist.
However, at the heart of these disagreements are fundamentally different understandings of racism. CRT focuses on outcomes and systemic patterns of inequality, rather than solely on individual beliefs or intentions. It calls for examining and rectifying these outcomes. Disagreements arise when discussing how to achieve this rectification and the extent to which race should be explicitly considered in the process.
A helpful legal illustration of this complexity is found in a 2007 U.S. Supreme Court case concerning school assignment policies aimed at maintaining racial 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.” In contrast, then-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 differing viewpoints stem from long-standing intellectual debates. Critical race theory emerged from postmodernist thought, which often questions universal values, objective knowledge, individual meritocracy, Enlightenment rationalism, and liberalism—principles often central to conservative ideologies.
CRT and its Relevance to K-12 Education
Scholars applying critical race theory to education analyze how K-12 policies and practices contribute to persistent racial disparities in educational outcomes and advocate for systemic changes. Their research encompasses areas such as:
- Racial segregation in schools
- Inequitable funding of school districts serving predominantly Black and Latino students
- Disproportionate rates of disciplinary actions against Black students
- Unequal access to gifted programs and selective-admission high schools
- Curricula that may reinforce racist stereotypes or narratives
It’s important to note that critical race theory is not synonymous with culturally relevant teaching, which emerged in the 1990s. Culturally relevant teaching is a pedagogical approach that values students’ cultural and racial backgrounds and aims to create rigorous and inclusive learning environments. However, it is related to CRT in its goal of helping students understand and critique the root causes of social inequality in their own lives and communities.
Conceptual illustration depicting culturally responsive teaching in a classroom, emphasizing the importance of understanding students’ diverse backgrounds and experiences.
Many educators support culturally relevant teaching and other strategies to create more inclusive and supportive school environments for Black students and other historically underserved student populations, who now constitute the majority of school-aged children. While these educators may implement practices aligned with the goals of CRT, they may not necessarily identify their work as explicitly “CRT-related.”
As one teacher educator explained, “The way we usually see any of this in a classroom is: ‘Have I thought about how my Black kids feel? And made a space for them, so that they can be successful?’ That is the level I think it stays at, for most teachers.” This perspective highlights the practical, student-centered focus of many educators working towards equity, regardless of their explicit engagement with critical race theory as an academic framework.
A concerning undercurrent in some critiques of CRT is the implication that academic excellence and culturally responsive teaching are mutually exclusive. This argument suggests that efforts to reform grading practices or diversify curricula to be less Eurocentric will ultimately disadvantage Black students by lowering standards or expectations.
Similar to the broader debate around CRT, its portrayal in K-12 settings has often lacked nuance. A poll by Parents Defending Education, an advocacy group, claimed that some schools were teaching ideas such as “white people are inherently privileged, while Black and other people of color are inherently oppressed and victimized,” “achieving racial justice requires discriminating against white people,” and “the United States was founded on racism.”
Much of the current controversy appears to stem not from academic CRT scholarship itself, but from fears that students, particularly white students, will be exposed to ideas perceived as harmful or demoralizing.
While some school districts have issued statements or adopted policies that incorporate language associated with CRT, the extent to which educators are explicitly teaching CRT concepts or utilizing curricula directly informed by CRT remains unclear. CRT scholarship is often published in academic journals and uses specialized language, making it less accessible to K-12 teachers.
Legislative Bans and the Debate Over Teaching Race
As of mid-May, several states, including Idaho, Iowa, Oklahoma, and Tennessee, have passed legislation aimed at prohibiting the teaching of “critical race theory” in schools. Similar bills have been proposed in numerous other state legislatures.
However, the language of these bills is often vague, making it unclear what specific topics or teaching methods they actually prohibit. This vagueness raises concerns about potential overreach.
For instance, would a teacher discussing historical instances of state-sponsored racism, such as the Jim Crow laws that disenfranchised Black Americans and enforced segregation, be considered in violation of these laws? The ambiguity of the legislation creates uncertainty and apprehension for educators.
The constitutionality of these bans and whether they infringe upon free speech rights is also questionable. Furthermore, enforcing such broad restrictions across countless classrooms would be extremely challenging.
Social studies educators worry that these laws could have a chilling effect, leading teachers to self-censor lessons on race and racism for fear of complaints from parents or administrators.
As English teacher Mike Stein told Chalkbeat Tennessee regarding a new law, “History teachers can not adequately teach about the Trail of Tears, the Civil War, and the civil rights movement. English teachers will have to avoid teaching almost any text by an African American author because many of them mention racism to various extents.”
These laws could also be utilized to challenge other curriculum initiatives, including ethnic studies programs and “action civics,” which encourages students to engage in research and propose solutions to local civic issues.
CRT in the Context of Ongoing Culture Wars
The accusation that schools are indoctrinating students with harmful ideologies or political viewpoints is not new. Critical race theory appears to be the latest focal point in this ongoing debate about the role of education and the content of school curricula.
Historians point out that in the early to mid-20th century, the primary concern was the perceived threat of socialism or Marxism in schools. Organizations like the American Legion and the John Birch Society actively campaigned against textbooks and educational materials they deemed “progressive” or subversive, fearing the influence of these ideas on students. Similar to the criticisms leveled against CRT today, these past anxieties centered on the perceived harm of exposing students to certain ideas.
As the student population has become increasingly diverse, these debates have become intertwined with issues of race and ethnic representation. Disagreements over multiculturalism, ethnic studies, the selection of texts for English curricula (“canon wars”), and even the recognition of Black Vernacular English (“ebonics debates”) reflect these evolving cultural anxieties.
Illustration symbolizing the revision of historical narratives in social studies education to include a more comprehensive and accurate account of America’s racial past.
In history education, debates have centered on balancing narratives of patriotism and American exceptionalism with 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 attempt to establish national history standards.
The New York Times’ 1619 Project, which sought to place the history and lasting impact of slavery, as well as Black Americans’ contributions to democratic reforms, at the center of American history, has become a recent flashpoint in the CRT debate.
Historians emphasize that schools have long been a battleground for broader culture wars. As one historian of education noted, “It’s because they’re nervous about broad social things, but they’re talking in the language of school and school curriculum. That’s the vocabulary, but the actual grammar is anxiety about shifting social power relations.”
In conclusion, the controversy surrounding critical race theory in education reflects deeper societal anxieties about race, power, and the direction of American society. Understanding CRT requires moving beyond simplified portrayals and engaging with its academic roots and nuanced arguments about systemic racism and its enduring impact.
