In the
preface of ‘Critical Race Theory: An
Introduction’ that we read a few classes ago Delgado and Stefancic mentioned
the vigorous opposition by some groups to the election of President Obama. The
article doesn’t go into detail but some of Obama critics were vocal about his
connection to Critical Race Theory. Apparently, as a law student, Obama was a
student of Derrick Bell, one of the founding intellectuals to Critical Race
Theory who happened to be the first tenured African American law professor at
Harvard. Some critics feel Critical Race Theory attempts to change the US’s
liberal legal order based on rationalist principles which they feel are immune
to the effects of racial discrimination. To me it looks like the critics
shudder at the notion of change which challenges the status quo as we’ve often
talked about in class. I feel often in America people literally interpret the
founding fathers, deify them resulting in an excuse not to adjust what critics
of change consider immutable laws. Such oppositional forces show how difficult
any change in race relations is achieved even when seemingly logical
legislation is demonized as radical and revolutionary. Here’s a link with a
controversial exchange between a reporter for CNN and a critic of CRT
I thought the most interesting part of the panel was when one panelist asked Pollack, the main critic of the critical race theory and main critic of Obama's interaction with Derrick Bell, if he was “frightened” of a “secret black movement that’s going to start killing white people?” After initially saying he wouldn't even respond to a question like that, he did say that no, he wasn't frightened of such a movement, but went on to criticize Obama for not being more like Martin Luther King. The sad thing is that there is still a need to ask such questions on a relatively respected news medium like CNN.
ReplyDeletePerhaps what struck me initially about this exchange was that you have a white male trying to suggest that a minority woman does not understand critical race theory, and then tries to challenge her (as the interviewer) to explain herself. When she does, and she does a pretty good job of it, there seems to be this sense of surprise and frustration on his part while he does essentially repeat her definition using slightly more inflammatory language. The display itself is a demonstration of the theory in action all on its own.
ReplyDeleteWhat's more is that the "vetting" campaign that took place in both the 2008 and 2012 elections succeeded in appealing to a lot of privileged white voters, using subversive though discernable language of racism. I think Soledad O'Brien was offended by the implication for good reason, and it certainly seemed that the guy was trying to suggest that Obama was discounting the civil rights movement as a farce even though the existence of racism in this country is still far and away a problem for many minorities.