Critical Race Theory
Sometimes an important idea hinges on one statistic. If that statistic is wrong, or missing, the entire idea collapses.
This newsletter is about an opinion piece that appeared this week in The New York Times. Arguably, the Times is the best journalism we've got, but the piece I'll be discussing left out a key statistic that would've radically altered its message.
First, a little background...
Critical Race Theory (CRT)
For about half a century, scholars have been developing perspectives on race that are referred to as Critical Race Theory. CRT means different things to different people; rather than presenting a broad overview, I want to just describe one the core tenets that's most relevant to this newsletter.
For many decades, schoolkids (including me) have been taught that racism is a specific attitude that gave rise to specific aberrations, ranging from institutions like slavery to individual acts of violence. Our teachers treated racism like stains on a fabric. If you could've gone back in history and removed those stains, the fabric would be clean.
CRT opposes this view, because it assumes that racism is woven into the fabric. In other words, racism has always been an integral part of our social institutions and practices. In some cases this is obvious (e.g., slavery was once legal as well as essential to the economy of the deep south) while in other cases, it may be more difficult to spot where laws and policies claim to be racially neutral. For example, a university policy that prohibits consideration of race in admissions decisions appears, on the surface, to be neutral, but if systemic racism has disadvantaged applicants of color, and if one way to overcome those disadvantages would be a college education, then a "race-blind" admissions policy actually perpetuates racial disadvantage.
Advocates of CRT want public school classes such as social studies and American history to include frank, factually-based treatment of race and racism. However, they do not routinely call for CRT to be taught in K-12 settings, because CRT is an academic theory that's more suitable for college-level instruction. However, conservatives who dislike the way race and racism are treated in K-12 classrooms use CRT as a convenient target for their objections. These folks argue that CRT itself is racist, because it intends to make white people feel uncomfortable about their privilege (as well as personally responsible for the racism of their forefathers), and because it intends to rewrite American history as one long manifestation of racial oppression.
Unfortunately, those who oppose the teaching of what they call CRT have been making headway: 12 states have passed laws that prohibit the teaching of CRT or at least limit how race and racism are discussed in public schools (see here for details). Thus, one might be inclined to think that Americans have unfavorable attitudes toward CRT. This is the backdrop for the the New York Times piece I'll be discussing.
The opinion piece
On February 26, Jamelle Bouie published a short opinion piece in the Times entitled "What Americans really think about 'Critical Race Theory'. "With the Republican crusade against critical race theory still on full blast", Bouie wrote, "I thought it was worth sharing the results of a new CBS poll on race and education that sheds a good deal of light on where the public actually stands on these issues."
In Bouie's view, the CBS poll shows that our country is more receptive to CRT than we realize. He concluded that Americans generally support the idea of teaching students about core tenets of CRT, even if they don't know much about what the theory is. Thus, Republicans who oppose teaching CRT in schools "aren't capturing the public mood on this issue", and, for Democrats, incorporating CRT into the public school curriculum "is a culture war they can win."
Unwarranted optimism
The CBS poll, reported on February 22, was administered to a nationally representative sample of 2,494 adult residents of the U.S. Questions focused on attitudes toward race, racism, CRT, and discussion of these topics in public school textbooks.
Bouie's presentation of the findings struck me as consistently more optimistic than the data warranted. For example, 58% of respondents agreed that racism is a “major problem” in America today. Bouie viewed this as illustrating a national mood of receptivity to discussions of race, but I think that's a stretch. You could just as easily say that 42% of respondents – nearly half – don't consider racism a major problem. This is even more disturbing when you look closely at the data: that 42% statistic actually collapses two groups of people: 28% who consider racism a "minor problem", and 14% who consider racism "not a problem". (14%….that's about 1 in 7 people.)
Word choice matters when translating numbers into narratives. For example, Bouie wrote that
"when asked if books should ever be banned for “discussing race” or “depicting slavery,” an overwhelming 87 percent of Americans said no."
87% may seem like a large number, but it doesn't seem overwhelming in the context of this particular question. More overwhelming to me is that 13% of American adults think it might be acceptable to ban a book simply because it discusses important issues and historical facts. (13% would be over 20 million people…)
There are other examples, but you get the idea. In my view, the stats are interpreted more optimistically than they should be. And, there's a key omission.
The missing statistic
Clearly Bouie read the CBS poll report, because he cites some of the specific questions and statistical findings. But he either missed or ignored one statistic that completely undermines his point: 86% of self-described conservatives viewed CRT unfavorably. All by itself, this stat tells tells us that it's not accurate to characterize the "public mood" in the U.S. right now as receptive to CRT.
What is our mood exactly? According to the survey, we're deeply divided. The results showed that CRT is viewed favorably by 81% of liberals, 52% of moderates, and 14% of conservatives.
To better understand those stats, we need to know how many Americans identify with each of the three political ideologies. Gallup data indicate that over the past three years, approximately 25% of American adults identified as liberal, 35% as moderate, and 36% as conservative.
If 25% of Americans are liberals, and 81% of this group views CRT favorably, then by multiplying these numbers together we get 20%. Hold on to that number for a moment.
For moderates, 52% of 35% is 18%. For conservatives, 14% of 36% is 5%. So, if we add that 20% for liberals to the 18% for moderates and the 5% of conservatives, we arrive at the rough estimate that 43% of Americans view CRT favorably.
43% in favor versus 57% opposed indicates a deep division. It's that not far off from a 50-50 split, although putting things this way glosses over the link between CRT attitudes and political beliefs. Put simply, most liberals approve of CRT, most conservatives disapprove, and moderates are split down the middle. In the end, I wouldn't conclude that the national mood is receptive to CRT. Although I agree with Bouie that CRT should inform our public education curriculum, I think he vastly overestimates Americans' receptivity to it, owing to a misreading of the survey stats.
Why is the misreading important?
1. Concern about editorial standards.
I would expect to see misrepresented stats on some website where folks who aren't very bright to begin with routinely adjust facts to fit their ideology. But we have here an opinion piece from a brilliant writer that was published in the New York Times.
It's easy to cite statistics that speak to the prominence of the Times. Over 100 million registered users (including more than 6 million subscribers). 132 Pulitzer prizes (more than any other media outlet). And there's anecdotal evidence. For example, yesterday, Andriy Yermak, head of the Presidential Office of Ukraine, wrote a guest essay entitled "As I Write, President Zelensky Is Beside Me...", because President Zelensky was, indeed, sitting beside him in a bunker. Mr. Yermak hasn’t published anything in the Washington Post or any other American news outlet. He chose the Times because he understands the scope of its influence.
In short, it's a big deal when the Times gets the stats wrong. With so much legitimate concern nowdays about "fake" news, or at least news that's ideologically slanted, we need our most authoritative sources to be as accurate as possible, as often as possible. Although it's not hard to find liberal bias in some of the Times' coverage, I believe that the organization strives for impartiality and excellence, and it remains an authoritative source. Which brings me to my next point.
2. Concern about educational impact.
I worry about educational stakeholders – families, teachers, administrators, board members, teacher educators etc. – reading or hearing about this opinion piece and overestimating Americans' receptivity to CRT.
Actually, I'm not overly worried if you work in the field of education, because you're already aware of growing opposition to CRT (and you know that in many cases, opposition isn't based on an accurate understanding of what CRT is or how race is treated in K-12 curriculum. Rather, it's about other things, such as restricting discussion of race in ways that the white majority find palatable.) In other words, I don’t think this opinion piece would cause educational professionals to suddenly assume that most Americans embrace CRT. But still, the Times is influential, and I'd hate to see this piece have any impact on anyone's perceptions of the zeitgeist.
Some solutions
I can't pretend to know how to increase Americans' receptivity to CRT – or to prevent the current erosion of teachers' capacity to speak about race and racism in the classroom – but here are three suggestions:
1. Increase public awareness of CRT.
The CBS poll found that 24% of Americans report having heard "nothing at all" about CRT, while another 41% report having heard "a little". There's clearly room to increase public awareness and knowledge of CRT, and to correct the many misconceptions that are floating around.
2. Present CRT to the public more strategically.
Although different scholars hold different views of CRT, most agree on a core set of principles. I think it's unfortunate that when these principles are summarized, the one usually mentioned first is that race is not a natural, biological category, but rather a socially constructed one that's used to oppress people of color.
Although I agree with the substance of this principle, I wish it weren't mentioned first, because well-intentioned people who might accept other elements of CRT may struggle with the idea that racial distinctions aren't biological. This in turn might distract them from engaging with other principles of CRT. And, yet they don't need to see that race is socially constructed in order to appreciate those principles. For example, one can recognize that systemic and institutional racism continue to be fundamental (and reprehensible) characteristics of American society, even if one assumes incorrectly that race is a biological category. In sum, I suggest rearranging the order in which the core principles of CRT are routinely presented.
3. Develop clear guidance for teachers.
Many of the new laws pertaining to CRT and/or discussions of race in the classroom are vague, causing teachers to worry about what they can or cannot say. It might be helpful for teacher organizations, teacher educators, etc. to develop state-specific recommendations for how race and racism can be discussed in the classrooms in ways that align with new curricular standards and restrictions while still portraying American history and society as accurately as possible.
Here's an example of the problem: in June 2021, the Texas legislature passed HB 3979, a bill that revises the social studies curriculum in Texas public schools. Although CRT isn’t explicitly mentioned in this bill, it was clearly on the minds of Republicans who crafted it, and it introduces a number of restrictions on how race and racism can be treated in social studies curriculum. For example:
"a teacher...may not...require or make part of a course the concept that...with respect to their relationship to American values, slavery and racism are anything other than deviations from, betrayals of, or failures to live up to, the authentic founding principles of the United States, which include liberty and equality."
In other words, slavery and racism should just be treated as stains on the clean fabric.
The problem with a restriction like this is not just that it requires teachers to deny the existence of structural, systemic, and institutional racism. It also just makes it hard to teach certain topics, such as the Constitution. I think everyone would agree that the Constitution embodies some if not all of our founding principles. It's also clear that our original Constitution legally recognized and regulated slavery. There's nothing unpatriotic about saying that; it's just a fact. You can't teach high school students the Three-fifths Clause, much less the compromise behind it, without reference to the institution of slavery. And, if slavery had been a mere failure to live up to our principles, the Emancipation Proclamation would've been sufficient to abolish it. We wouldn't have also needed a separate constitutional amendment.
This is just one example where teachers may need more guidance as restrictive yet somewhat confusing new laws are passed.