Monday, September 07, 2020

Critical race theory’s toxic, destructive impact on America

By Carol M. Swain | Washington Examiner

Exposing the fraudulent NYT's 1619 Project"1776is an assembly of independent voices who uphold our country’s authentic founding virtues and values and challenge those who assert America is forever defined by its past failures, such as slavery.

Under the guise of a venture called the “1619 Project,” the New York Times is introducing revisionist history about race in America into classrooms across the nation without the normal peer review expected of educational materials.

The project began in August 2019 with publication of a collection of essays and artistic works to commemorate the 400-year anniversary of slavery in America. The project, a collaboration between the New York Times Magazine and the Pulitzer organization, has mushroomed into a movement to re-educate Americans with novel claims about how deeply racism is embedded at America’s core.

As of February 2020, five public school systems had adopted the 1619 Project’s curriculum district-wide. Its free teaching materials had reached 3,500 classrooms. This rapid progression for distribution of teaching materials created by journalists and scholars has been done without proper vetting. There has been no standard review process or serious effort made to address the many concerns raised by distinguished subject-matter critics from elite universities. The rush to get these materials into America’s classrooms was simply reckless.

What has ensued is a new racial narrative that places black America’s current struggles at the feet of the nation’s white Founding Fathers. This requires a new birth date for the nation. Instead of July 4, 1776, when the Founders signed the Declaration of Independence pledging to risk their lives, fortunes, and sacred honor to found a new nation, the 1619 Project scholars place the inception of the nation more than 150 years earlier — at 1619. That’s when the first Africans came to Virginia as indentured servants before becoming free blacks.

Curiously, and inexplicably, this revisionist narrative skips over the 42 years of indentured servitude, a system that enabled former slaves to gain freedom and the resources to become the foundation of the free black population in America.

Jake Silverstein of the Times has written that the arrival of enslaved Africans “inaugurated a barbaric system of chattel slavery that would last for the next 250 years.” But conspicuously absent from the dominant historical narrative is the fact that free blacks and Indian tribes were right there alongside whites, buying and selling slaves after slavery became legal in 1661.

Historian Philip Foner, in his book “History of Black Americans,” provides critical details that American students should know about the origins of slavery in America:

“The fact that the early Negroes imported into Virginia held the status of indentured servants is shown by the records of some Negroes’ receiving the customary ‘freedom dues’ in the form of land at the end of their term of service. Some obtained land after becoming free by importing servants under the ‘head-right’ system, by which they obtained 50 acres for each servant imported. A small number of Negro landowners not only held black servants, but were sufficiently prosperous to pay the transportation costs of white indentured servants, through each of whom they could obtain 50 acres of land. Anthony Johnson, who was imported into Virginia in 1622, accumulated property after he ended his indentured period, and even though he lost all his holdings in a fire, was able by 1651 to import five black servants into the colony, for which he was granted 250 acres in Northampton County. About 1650, Benjamin Dole, a Negro, was granted 300 acres of land in Surry County for having imported six servants. Another Negro was granted 550 acres after importing 11 people.”

This account differs substantially from the narrative advanced by the 1619 Project contributors. What some of them hope to do is to build a case for monetary reparations for descendants of slaves. This is a false hope that would neither address the problems many blacks have today nor acknowledge the enormous progress that black Americans have made overall.

Those who push white guilt and black victimhood ignore critical facts. One is that today’s white Americans are not responsible for the sins of generations ago. Second, slavery was an institution that blacks, Native Americans, and whites participated in as slaveholders. There’s plenty of guilt to go around.

Critical race theory is an analytical framework to analyze institutions and culture. Its purpose is to divide the world into white oppressors and non-white victims. Instead of traditional forms of knowledge, it holds up personal narratives of marginalized minority “victim” groups (blacks, Hispanics, Asians) as evidence (considered irrefutably by its nature) of the dishonesty of their mostly white heterosexual oppressors. The ultimate goal of this theory’s proponents is to remake society so that the victim class eventually displaces the oppressors and becomes the new ruling class.

Within this framework, “white privilege” and its unearned benefits become responsible for economic, health, and social disparities in minority communities. This system of thought advances a narrative of blame that declares white America guilty for the plight of blacks.

When it comes to education, members of the victim classes are to do all the teaching. It is a worldview and narrative that commands white people to sit in obedience and listen quietly to arguments about their unjust gains as well as their obligation to provide a remedy for them — in this case, to black Americans, whether they are descended from slaves or not.

There is no way out for whites when it comes to race. Critical race theory assumes that racism is permanent and affects every aspect of society, including political, economic, social and religious institutions. The theory further advances the belief that being born with white skin, in itself, confers unearned privileges. Therefore, any societal attainment of colorblindness, in which race or ethnicity does not hinder opportunities, is impossible. Neutrality in law and decision-making is a pipe dream that can never be attained. Therefore, this mistaken reasoning goes, the oppressive system must be dismantled and destroyed.

This flawed theory suggests that race and ethnicity will always taint and pollute every decision, and, as a result, racial minorities will consistently lose out to whites because of structural racism. The message is clear: If you are unfortunate enough to be born with black skin, you are forever a second-class citizen who pays a race penalty. Under this rationale, the most affluent blacks rank below the poorest whites when it comes to privilege and opportunities. We are asked to believe that more than 50 years of affirmative action programs and race consciousness have done nothing to change the trajectory or opportunities of people born without white skin.

Critical race theory says that every dysfunctional condition in black urban communities can be traced to slavery and its aftermath. There is no place for individual choice or initiative.

That’s the theory. But what critical race theory actually “accomplishes” is to create anger, frustration, and despondency among persons in the victim categories, who internalize this destructive message.

Universities and colleges have created a cottage industry of people who profit from indoctrinating America’s future leaders with a dangerous and destructive ideology. These future leaders spread this diseased ideology, like a virus without antidote, into corporate boardrooms as well as K-12 public and private schools, both Christian and non-Christian.

Standards normally used to reward academic credentials are sometimes relaxed to give more authority to watered-down factors such as “personal experience” and the narrative of victim-class members. Less credence is given to whatever facts, science, and contrary data that persons from the “oppressor” class might dare to proffer.

Education is now about white privilege indoctrination. According to the narrative, all white Americans are guilty oppressors who have benefited from their white skin, even if their parents are, say, Appalachian poor or high school dropouts working at the local big box franchise store or unemployed. Once the oppressor label is applied, accepted, and internalized, a deadly silencing ensues. In some cases, animated videos with messages of white guilt and oppression shown to middle and high school students create damaging images, by which whites are taught to feel guilt and minorities are assigned permanent and debilitating victimhood.

One notorious example of the “teaching” materials for diversity and sensitivity training is a short YouTube video entitled, “The Unequal Opportunity Race.” It has had more than 1.3 million views as of this writing. Its crippling message is clear: White boys and girls have unfair advantages, and white-imposed roadblocks prevent black boys and girls from achieving success.

Last year, the office of instruction for Westfield (N.J.) Public Schools approved a course on “Power, Privilege, and Imbalance in American Society.” Learning objectives of the semester-long, two-credit course include how to:

  • Analyze and evaluate how white supremacy has been established in American society and the ways it continues to impact the African American, Native American, Hispanic, and Asian communities today; and
  • Identify the concept of race and differentiate between the terms “racism,” “prejudice,” “de jure” and “de facto segregation,” “institutional racism,” “personal racism,” “tolerance” and “intolerance.”

The syllabus explains that critical race theory is a theoretical concept that emerged from the civil rights movement. The goal is to “give voice to groups who have suffered from systemic oppression, and develop theoretical and practical ways for students to deconstruct the power structures.”

The 1619 Project is a misguided effort that follows in these lines, whose aim is to keep open historical wounds while telling only half of the story. It is flawed because it is connected to critical race theory and a diversity-inclusion grievance industry that focuses on identity politics and division. To blame today’s families for the mistakes of long-dead ancestors is not a prescription for unifying the country or empowering racial and ethnic minorities. But then, that’s not really the goal.

We can do better. Within Christian communities, there is a basis for countering destructive narratives that have invaded our educational institutions and corporate world. The solution for hatred, bitterness, and distrust can be found in New Testament principles. Rather than wallow in the past and revisionists’ efforts to build a case for reparations, we, as Americans, need to move forward while practicing the forgiveness and love of neighbor that Jesus espoused.

We need not look any further than the “golden rule” -- do unto others as you would have them do unto you -- to find the tools that enable us to transcend racial and ethnic conflicts that keep us from working together and celebrating our victories.

The present approach -- that of critical race theory -- cripples members of the designated victim groups while creating new victims among those classified as oppressors. I speak from a personal perspective as someone who has watched the changes from many vantage points.

I reached my formative years before critical race theory and cultural Marxism had gained a dominant foothold in academia. Even though I was born and grew up in rural Southern poverty during the era of segregation, I was not taught to hate white people or to hate America. Instead, my black teachers stressed our need to work hard and excel. I grew up to be a proud American who never doubted she lived in the greatest country in the world.

No one around me encouraged me to see myself as a victim. I never fixated on the fact that I was black, poor, and female. Had I done so, I doubt I would have achieved anything.

Carol Swain, a former professor of political science and law at Vanderbilt University, hosts the “Be the People” podcast and sits on the advisory board of Black Voices for Trump.



‘Critical’ Ethnic Studies Returns to California

By Williamson M. Evers | The Wall Street Journal

 The state’s new curriculum prefers victimization to minority achievement, and Marxism to liberal values.

A year after it was sent back to the drawing board, California’s ethnic-studies model curriculum is back. The last version, released in May 2019, was radical and jargon-laced. Even many progressives found it fringy. On Aug. 13, the state Education Department presented a new, toned-down draft to the curriculum commission. Not only does it suffer from the same conceptual problems as before, but during their meeting, commissioners directed the Education Department to resuscitate unpopular parts cut from the 2019 draft.

The curriculum is moving toward adoption in March by the State Board of Education. Legislation is also advancing to make ethnic studies a high-school graduation requirement. The new curriculum won’t serve the educational function that America needs in a time of broad recognition of injustice tied to race. Stanford education professor Thomas Dee, a co-author of a 2016 study finding academic gains for some students who took an ethnic-studies class, said in a radio interview that “high-quality” ethnic-studies curricula “don’t exclusively emphasize victimization.” “Just the opposite,” he said. They stress instead “the considerable cultural assets” of minorities and their capacity to achieve.

Excluded from California’s model curriculum are the white ethnic groups (Italians, Irish, Poles and so forth) studied fruitfully by scholars such as Nathan Glazer, Daniel P. Moynihan and Michael Novak. Also largely excluded are groups like Jews and Armenians who were persecuted abroad and sought refuge in America. The groups that dominate the curriculum are African-Americans, Latinos, Asian-Americans and American Indians.

By focusing on these four and treating them solely as victims, the curriculum misses the opportunity to convey to students that groups at the bottom of the social and economic ladder can climb, making use of their cultural assets and the opportunities the country affords them. This curriculum teaches the opposite. It attaches moral opprobrium to success by instructing teachers and students that the Jews and Irish in America have secured white “racial privilege.”

Welcome to “critical ethnic studies,” which boils down to vulgar Marxism, identity politics and victimology. Ideologically blinkered designers of ethnic-studies programs miss out on knowledge and analysis from mainstream social sciences that could enhance what students are taught.

Gary Becker won the Nobel Prize in economics in part for his analysis of discrimination. Becker showed that if business owners hire on a basis other than productivity, they pay an economic penalty. They lose out on some of the most productive employees, and competitors may hire them. But when government policies protect established companies or ensconced workers from competition, that penalty shrinks, making it cheaper to discriminate. In the Jim Crow South, the costs of maintaining an exclusionary economy were unloaded on society. White companies and workers used government to stop blacks from competing.

Such insights can complicate the common view of labor unions as a humanitarian force aiding downtrodden workers. Unions are job trusts determined to dominate labor markets and raise wages by restricting the job opportunities of nonmembers—often blacks, historically. Herbert Hill, the longtime labor director of the NAACP, wrote in a 1965 essay that labor-union exclusion of blacks has had “a cumulative effect in forming the occupational characteristics” of the African-American labor force—to blacks’ disadvantage.

Sociology and social psychology also have much to teach ethnic studies about the role of envy in society. For example, envy of successful Jews and those of Jewish ancestry contributed to the Spanish Inquisition and the Holocaust. The rulers of Turkey during World War I mobilized envy to carry out the Armenian genocide. The prosperity of Japanese-American farmers on the West Coast encouraged envious neighbors to seek their internment and forced sales of their property during World War II.

In his 1966 book “Envy: A Theory of Social Behaviour,” sociologist Helmut Schoeck demonstrates that envy can be found in all societies. The important thing for ethnic studies to teach students is that some societies check and suppress envy in helpful ways, while others exacerbate it with horrific consequences.

The revised model curriculum in California portrays capitalism as oppressive and gives considerable weight to America’s socialist critics. Yet history and political science show that the state can be used readily under socialism for racist purposes. Obvious examples include the Soviet Union’s 1948-49 purge of “rootless cosmopolitans”—that is, Jews—and its 1951-53 Doctors’ Plot attack on Jewish physicians. Under socialism, a bureaucratic elite controls all job assignments, news media, courts and the secret police. When that elite is envious, insecure or looking for a scapegoat, what chance does an ethnic minority have?

The proponents of critical ethnic studies are so insulated by Marxism and identity politics that they miss insights from other fields. The new curriculum doesn’t give a balanced picture of America and, in these racially charged times, it could ignite truly ugly disputes. Perhaps worst of all, it gives short shrift to minority achievement and deprives students of the optimistic view of America. Following this curriculum, students would have no basis on which to understand Frederick Douglass’s defense of the U.S. Constitution as “a glorious liberty document” and his celebration of the potential of a country based on natural and inalienable rights.

Mr. Evers is a senior fellow at the Independent Institute and a former U.S. assistant secretary of education for planning, evaluation, and policy development.