We had a post a while back that challenged Tidewater Forum readers to explain Critical Race Theory. The challenge, I think, was based on the assumption that critics of CRT don’t know what it is, and wouldn’t criticize it if they did. The instant essay is as good a response to the original post as one can imagine, albeit a late one.
I am particularly struck by this observation in the essay:
Second, critical race theorists have constructed their argument like a mousetrap. Disagreement with their program becomes irrefutable evidence of a dissenter’s “white fragility,” “unconscious bias,” or “internalized white supremacy.” I’ve seen this projection of false consciousness on their opponents play out dozens of times in my reporting. Diversity trainers will make an outrageous claim—such as “all whites are intrinsically oppressors” or “white teachers are guilty of spirit murdering black children”—and then when confronted with disagreement, they adopt a patronizing tone and explain that participants who feel “defensiveness” or “anger” are reacting out of guilt and shame. Dissenters are instructed to remain silent, “lean into the discomfort,” and accept their “complicity in white supremacy.”
The Critical Race Theorists are immoral people, as evidenced by such dishonest rhetorical tactics.