• Jonathan Feingold

    Jonathan Feingold Jonathan Feingold is a School of Law associate professor of law, can be reached at jfeingol@bu.edu. Profile

Comments & Discussion

Boston University moderates comments to facilitate an informed, substantive, civil conversation. Abusive, profane, self-promotional, misleading, incoherent or off-topic comments will be rejected. Moderators are staffed during regular business hours (EST) and can only accept comments written in English. Statistics or facts must include a citation or a link to the citation.

There are 3 comments on POV: What the Public Doesn’t Get: Anti–Critical Race Theory Lawmakers Are Passing Pro-CRT Laws

  1. Thank you for sharing this perspective. I had not previously thought of the significance of these CRT laws in this way. I initially viewed them as hollow actions that conservative law makers could point too on the campaign trail for reelection in order to garner votes from people uninformed on the actual definition of CRT. After all, I feel as though conservative media has already whipped up such a frenzy over CRT that teachers would be facing significant enough societal pressure in conservative areas to avoid teaching CRT altogether. However, after reading this I realize such legal action is really a statement from those in power to officially reinforce such societal pressures.

  2. This is such an important topic. I think that people who are anti-CRT hold a similar perspective as people that say they “don’t see color.” It sounds like they are trying to sound anti-racist and that the only thing that matters is a person’s character. And I think we have all thought that at one point, at least I have. But what I have learned is that you need to look at someone’s race to have a better understanding of who they are, where they come from, what they have been through to really understand their character and what they had to do to get here. When you fail to recognize someone’s race, you fail to recognize their hardships and struggles that they had to endure because of it. There is such a wide diversity of students in America, and the earlier on they are exposed to learning anti-racism the better off they will be for the rest of their lives. We owe it to all students to allow them a chance to learn critical race theory and find ways that they can support their peers. And as you mentioned, although this CRT including law will most likely not implement CRT in the classrooms, it is a step in the direction, whether it is intentional or not. Thank you for sharing this piece.

  3. A third answer to your question about CEO statistics: These disparities exist because change takes time! The population of CEOs being unrepresentative of the general population does not necessarily imply that these systems are biased or unfair. The proportions themselves do not really tell us anything about fairness. Sure, they’re unrepresentative. But less than a century ago, all CEOs were white men. There is a lot of lag in economic and demographic trends. New equilibriums for any system are not reached overnight. A more accurate estimator of system fairness might be to examine how CEO proportions have changed over time.

    Critical Race Theory is not the only method of explaining inequality in our world. The same questions which spawned Critical Legal Theory(the predecessor to CRT) are pertinent across nearly all areas of public life and policy, particularly economics. Take the gas tax for instance. Even though it is implemented as a flat tax, it functions like a regressive tax. The majority of gas tax revenue comes from poorer Americans, who tend to have longer commutes. These poorer Americans are also more likely to be black or brown. The adoption of electric vehicles is exacerbating this trend, as EVs are exempt from the gas tax and only the wealthy can afford them.

    While I would love to have CRT in secondary education, I believe it is dangerous to teach it as the only method of explaining inequality. This gripe is not CRT specific. Teaching any ideology as the only way to explain inequality (or similar notions) fails to challenge students to truly think. I’d argue that teaching students that capitalism is the only way to structure a successful society is equally damaging. By failing to mention other ideologies, we are implying to students that these other ideologies are simply unviable or wrong. This gives students an understanding of the world that we already know is simply wrong. To properly explain these concepts I believe that secondary education needs an entire class devoted to exploring notions such as success, inequality and happiness. We need more reflection and philosophy in our classrooms and culture now more than ever.

Post a comment.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *