JWW ON CRITICAL RACE THEORY PART II: TAKING ON THE MYTHS

Our last post laid out the definition of critical race theory (CRT) as developed by the legal scholars who’ve led and participated in the CRT movement since its inception in the mid-1980s.  We explained the differences among us about interpreting the definitions offered bythose scholars and we set out CRT’s six most fundamental principles for considering racial issues in legal contexts. Now we take on perhaps a bigger task – sorting through the misinformation about CRT perpetrated not only by right wing zealotseager for an attack on any effort at understanding the true history of race in America and its impact on our laws and norms, but also by ordinary people who’ve bought into the disinformation campaign now swirling around CRT.

CRT has become shorthand for every program, every effort aimed at uncovering America’s true racial history. Those

squawking loudest about CRT don’t want to uncover that history in hopes of maintaining the status quo. We think it important that Americans know CRT isn’t the enemy and that laws aimed at keeping the truth about our history hidden do liberty, justice, and equality no favors.  

The Myths

As we explained last time, right wingcommentators like Tucker Carlson and Mark Levine have blasted out dire warnings about what CRT could do to our society. Those warnings rest on falsehoods and myths the right has pushed about CRT:
·    Schools are using CRT to teach childrento hate America – as we pointed out, hardly any elementary or secondary schools incorporate CRT into their curriculum. More importantly, CRT does not advocate hating America. Only law schools (and maybe a few graduate schools) would dare trying to teach the complicated concepts that go with real CRT. We’ve watched the eyes of college graduates glaze over when we’ve delved into detailed CRT analysis. This may represent the most dangerous and outrageous falsehood ginned up in the current craziness.  

·    CRT “disregards” the idea all people are created equal -- buying into this mythdemonstrates the distinction between CRT’s real focus and what the right claims it does. Our study of original works describing or applying CRT makes clear this notion hasno basis in fact. We suggest anyone adhering to this idea read Derrick Bell’s Faces at the Bottom of the Well: The Permanence of Racism. The book endorses no such idea. Bell helped popularize the concept of CRT in the American lexicon during his distinguished academic career. 

·    CRT is inherently divisive – parents objecting to CRT have advanced this noble sounding idea in opposition to teaching CRT in schools.As we’ve pointed out, nobody is teaching CRT in schools, except perhaps colleges, law schools, and professional schools.  We suspect this kind of criticism actually aims at preventing a more honest picture of America’s racial history. Those who object to such honesty should at least get their facts straight. If they don’t want more honesty about America’s racial history, they should say so, not blame a theory they understand marginally or not at all.

CRT has come to encompass all efforts at greater honesty about America’s history withrace. Conservatives have tried equating CRT with the 1619 Project, an award-winning journalism program developed by the New York Times that promotes a more realistic look at how slavery,in particular, actually unfolded and affected race relations in America. The right hopes Americans can’t tell the difference between CRT and other anti-racism efforts.

What the Fight Really Means

We see it as unfortunate that CRThas become a  bogeyman/whipping boy in the culture wars. CRT has a meaningful place in legal scholarship. It represents the work of some of America’s best legal minds on a topic that has troubled this nation since its inception. If our grandchildren attend law school, we know they’ll still learn about the law and the impact of racial considerations on the law. They may find CRT useful in grasping that subject.

By grabbing on to CRT, an obscure, decades-old legal theory that only the most elite academics fully understand and making it the whipping boy for simmering racial grievance, the right has found a way to take attention from its failings of leadership and its lack of ideas for governing.   Republicans apparently have given up on being a party of ideas. They offer nothing at the federal level

and only voter suppression at the state level. Republicans now care about little more than acquiring and keeping power. If they have ideas about moving America forward on tough issues that affect people’s lives – health care, finishing the job on the, pandemic, infrastructure, climate change – they aren’t telling us about them. Instead, they’ve ginned up this CRT dust storm.  Such side shows demonstrate their immaturity and unfitness to lead.

 

·  CRT involves making white students hate themselves and their ancestors – CRT tools and principles offer methods of analysis of how law operates in our society and how racism often influences law. That’s a far cry from indoctrinating someone to hate themselves.

 

What they won’t find helpful is the debate that erupted over CRT in 2021. That debate concerns politics, not legal analysis. Republicans, looking at a shrinking portion of the electorate (remember, they’ve lost the popular vote in every presidential election since 1988 except one) apparently feel they must do two things : (1) keep their base agitated and (2) troll for more angry white voters potentially attracted to their grievance politics. Misrepresentations about the meaning and purpose of CRT offer the best possibilities.

People say America needs two vibrant political parties. At some level, that’s true. It doesn’t need this Republican Party.    

THREE TAKES ON THE BIDEN AGENDA

 President Biden laid out his ambitious agenda in a generally well-received speech to a pared down, socially distant joint session of Congress on April 28. The president apparently has the wind at his back in terms of public support for the measures he’s proposing. Polling indicates voters, including many Republicans, back Biden’s proposals.

That does not mean he has Republican support in Congress. If much of his program becomes law, it will happen because Democrats unify and pass

financially related matters through budget reconciliation. The fate of voting rights and police reform measures, to which reconciliation doesn’t apply, remains doubtful.

Though all three of us count ourselves as supporters of the president and his administration, we don’t have a unified view of all Biden’s proposals.  The differences are sometimes subtle and can turn on political calculations, not substantive policy views:

 

Henry:  All In                                                                   

Biden’s overarching themes hold great appeal for me. I particularly like the fact he has cast his program in terms of creating opportunity out of crisis. The United States still faces the pandemic and the economic fallout it created, not to mention potentially existential

threats in climate change and systemic racism. As Republicans increasingly claim systemic racism doesn’t exist, Biden and other progressives must push for changes in policing and attack economic inequality. These difficult issues offer an opportunity for much needed solutions we’ve put off long enough.

Biden has also struck a chord with me by emphasizing that his plans address the nation’s

need for reality and hope. That means legislation and an administrative approach that tackles problems in

concrete ways and offers Americans hope they can have better futures and an efficient government that works.

As for the individual components of Biden’s legislative agenda, I offer my total support on rejoining the Paris Climate Accords, reforming and revising the corporate tax structure so the wealthy and big business pay their fair share, universal background checks for firearms purchases, an end to so-called ghost guns that law enforcement can’t track, recasting the ways we look at and think of infrastructure, and creating a citizenship path for undocumented immigrants.

President Biden is on the right track and I’m there with him.

Woodson: Congress, Your Move                         

I find little in Biden’s speech with which to disagree. We will have to wait and see how

many of Biden’s policies become law. I hope they all do. These policies are the most progressive since Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal.   

                                        

Reminding his fellow countrymen that he is a man of action, Biden opened his speech by pointing out that his AMERICAN RESCUE PLAN had already resulted in $1,400.00 checks reaching 85% of American families and 220 million Americans receiving Covid-19 shots. 

Biden elaborated further on his agenda:

AMERICAN JOBS PLAN – jobs in theconstruction of roads, bridges, rails, transit lines, replacing lead pipes in schools and day

care centers, and bringing high speed internet to the entire country. He urged Congress to pass pay equity legislation for women and endorsed $15.00 as an hourly minimum wage.

AMERICAN FAMILIES PLAN – 2 years of quality preschool and 2 years of free community college; $3,600.00 in childcare tax credits; greater investment in black, and tribal colleges.

AMERICAN RESCUE PLAN – lower premiums and deductibles for persons who get their medical insurance through the Affordable Care Act; and a reduction in the cost of prescription drugs.

Biden will pay for this with no increase in taxes on the middle class or poor. Only individuals and corporations who make more than $400,000.00 annually will experience a tax increase.

Biden announced the withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan but remained committed to fighting terrorism abroad and at home,

saying that white nationalists were the greatest terrorist threat that the nation faced. He mentioned George Floyd by name when urging Congress to pass legislation to insure equitable policing and urged the passage of the John Lewis Voting Rights Act.

In my view, Biden got the policies and the politics right. Congress should pass the necessary legislation.

Rob: Consider at Least Tapping the Brakes

                         

I’m generally supportive of the administration’s

agenda. We must address infrastructure and climate. The corporate tax structure requires a  fix even if the federal government didn’t need one additional dime for Biden’s program or anything else. I see raising taxes on corporations and the wealthy as the necessary first step in ending our grotesque income inequality problem.

That’s the primary beef I have with the Bernie Sanders – Elizabeth Warren economic and tax

programs from which Biden has borrowed so  heavily. They propose tax increases for new spending. I propose tax increases because we  need a fairer tax system in which everyone pays their just share. Enacting the

tax increases without as much spending as Biden plans would make us a more equitable society and likely spur an economic revival reminiscent of the Clinton years. Forty-two increased taxes on upper income taxpayers and wiped out the deficit in the process. He presided over modest spending increases, but the main impact of higher tax revenue was holding down interest rates. Government borrowing didn’t absorb capital that became available for businesses, large and small.  We experienced prolonged growth that lasted into the George W. Bush years.

We should do much of what Biden proposes. I’m not interested in giving aid and comfort to obstructionist Republicans by opposing him. If I were a senator, when push came to shove,

I’m  sure I’d vote for his bills. We might, however, consider doing what he wants in bite-sized chunks. Just saying, you know.  

THE PANDEMIC ISN’T OVER: KEEPING OUR EYES ON THE PRIZE

Despite much progress, a threat has appeared that could derail solving the pandemic problem. That threat compels us to join those sounding an alarm.

To some extent, the coronavirus pandemic has always been about numbers. We know many of the painful ones – 29.2 million infections

and 530,000 deaths by the first week in March; about 22 million jobs lost or diminished; 328.2 million (in other words, everybody) lives disrupted. And now, another set of numbers offers hope for an end to the madness – decreased cases, over 59 million people who’ve had at least one shot of vaccine, maybe 255 million people (every adult in the country) vaccinated by summer.

The problem lies in the fact states have started opening their economies by lifting restrictions on capacity in public venues, making social  distancing harder, and eliminating mask requirements. It’s a trickle

now, but it could soon become a flood. As one doctor warned, don’t spike the football after making a few first downs, wait until you’re in the end zone.

 

What’s Happening

Republican governors in Texas and Mississippi announced recently they’re ending statewide

mask mandates and limits on occupancy in eating places and other businesses, steps already taken by Florida’s Republican governor, Ron DeSantis.  GOP chief executives in Iowa and Montana ended mask requirements in February. Republican governors in Arkansas and Alabama said they’d suspend mask orders in late March and early April, though that move in Arkansas depends on testing results and hospitalizations.

One Democratic governor, Connecticut’s Ned Lamont, kept the mask requirement in place, but eliminated indoor dining capacity limits. He also expanded how many people can attend sporting events.

Different motives likely lay behind these moves, some probably benign, some likely cynical, and some perhaps the result of citizen pressure. Benign explanations included increasing vaccination rates and a declining number of infections. Continuing politicization

of the  pandemic by former President Donald Trump and his allies made it likely some GOP governors simply sought political favor with Trump supporters who never liked masks, social distancing, and other anti-COVID 19 measures. Texas Governor Greg Abbott, in particular, wants to position himself for a presidential run in 2024 and drew blowback from Texas Democrats who suspected a political motive in his roll back order. These actions place political interests above those of the citizenry. 

We admit public pressure could affect some governors. Americans, even those who support mask wearing and other anti-COVID 19 safety measures, are tired of how the virus has disrupted their lives. They want a return to normal, even despite evidence the fight isn’t over. We think such an attitude equates to taking a cast off a broken leg before the bone heals because the patient finds the cast inconvenient. In this instance, removing the cast could have deadly consequences.  

Neanderthal Thinking

Orders issued by Abbott and Mississippi Governor Tate Reeves didn’t go unchallenged. President Biden, who has garnered 70% public approval (44% of Republicans) for his handling of the pandemic, called the moves “Neanderthal thinking.” The president said of the crisis, “It’s not over yet.” He urged that Americans, “Stay vigilant.”

Rochelle Walenski, director of the Centers for Disease Control, expressed “deep concern”

about the trajectory of the pandemic, and added, “Now is not the time to relax critical safeguards.” Other public health experts like Dr. Anthony Fauci also warned against prematurely discarding masks and social distancing requirements. 

 

A Personal Story

One of us, Rob, suffered a severe case of COVID 19 last fall, spending five days in a hospital, three of them on oxygen, though not a respirator. After a harrowing day of hallucinations (“I thought I was walking on the ceiling,” he said), his condition dictated treatment with experimental drugs and steroids. Almost as bad as the hospital time was the recovery. Unlike the recovery from other illnesses in a life of almost seven decades, this recovery featured not a smooth road back to good health but resembled a discomforting trek along a jagged, uneven path littered with rocks and boulders. For every two steps forward, the route required at least one backwards. For the better part of a month after the hospital, nothing tasted good, not even water. The sense of smell vanished. Yes, some people suffered mild forms of the illness, but no one should underestimate the perils of even a moderate case. This isn’t the flu. Rob’s advice: Do everything possible to avoid getting this disease.

 

A War Metaphor

After a vigorous discussion, we found ourselves agreeing with Woodson’s label of

“irresponsible” for those who give in to impatience and prematurely discard measures that health experts know stop the spread of

COVID 19. He  has a point that this is a war, as 

the infection and death numbers show. An army can’t quit before winning the war, especially not with victory in sight, when a loss could decimate the entire army.

Through the efforts of scientists, we

have vaccines that work. Thanks to now having a president who takes the issue seriously, vaccine distribution works. The president says by the end of May every adult American, about 255 million people, who wants a vaccination can get one. That’s a real win. We can lose now only by giving the game away. No reason exists for doing that. We can make the numbers work now.  

                

   

WHAT’S THE MATTER WITH TEXAS?: THE DISASTER SHOULDN’T HAVE HAPPENED

Many Americans couldn’t help noticing the incongruity between the recent landing of a powerful rover on Mars while millions of Texans  struggled with freezing homes, burst water pipes, and disruptions in supplies of food and other commodities. We note the Mars landing was a project of the federal government, while the disaster in Texas resulted from policies of the state government. 

                                           

The Texas catastrophe drew our interest because one of us lives there and we found the suffering of so many of our fellow citizens revolting.  More than 50 people died at last count. That’s unacceptable, given our understanding of why it happened. Like the toll from the pandemic, much suffering could have been avoided with a more compassionate, attentive government focused on human needs.

The Roots of the Disaster

We’ve alluded at various times to Thomas Frank’s What’s the Matter with Kansas?: How Conservatives Won the Heart of America. The book shows how

Republicans capitalized on social and racial issues in getting lower and middle income whites to vote against their economic interests to the benefit of big business. That’s a lot of what caused the Texas disaster. For years, Texas Republicans, in the pockets of the fossil fuel industry and utility interests, neglected imposing regulations that could have prevented the equipment failures that caused the electrical system breakdowns. These politicians, preaching the gospel of deregulation, didn’t heed warnings from a decade ago that electrical generating facilities in Texas needed weatherization. The power producers preferred not spending the money  and politicians

didn’t make them do it. They insulated themselves by harping on culture-based issues that kept the majority of Texans voting Republican.

Texas operates its own electric grid which serves about 80 per cent of the state. The federal government doesn’t regulate that grid.  Texas, therefore, can’t access electricity from neighboring states in an emergency.

When the freeze occurred, Republican

heavyweights like former Governor Rick Perry, energy secretary in the Trump administration, advanced the suggestion Texans would trade a few more days without electricity so they could avoid federal regulation. Rob and other Texas residents said, “Speak for yourself, Mr. Secretary.”    

 

Rob’s Take from the Ground

I’m not a native Texan (like Henry and Woodson I was born and grew up in Arkansas), but I’ve lived here 40 years and consider it home. Though I’m proud of my University of Texas degrees and the fact three of my children were born here, I’m not proud of the brain-dead politics that created this disaster. Our state’s political leaders apparently care more about protecting corporate interests that fund their campaigns than about the welfare of ordinary citizens who found themselves burning their own furniture in sometimes futile attempts to stay warm.  

I should say that my partner and I got off easy. We didn’t lose power. Thanks to her decision a few years ago to switch to weather resistant pipes, our water supply remained intact. But I have reason for anger. The three of my children who live in Texas suffered through a good portion of the four-day emergency with little electricity or water. They got the full brunt of the misery and the blame lies squarely on state leadership.

 

The Green New Deal?  Give Us a

Break!

Texas Governor Greg Abbot, who

harbors 2024 presidential ambitions, went on Fox News during the tragedy and blamed the problems on the fact wind turbines and some solar facilities failed. He said that showed how America would fare with the Green New Deal.

Republican legislators called for more emphasis on fossil fuels. All that was disinformation.

Texas gets about ten per cent of its electricity from renewables like wind and solar. The shortfall went way beyond that. Grid operators admitted most of the problem resulted from disruptions in power generated by natural gas caused by frozen gas lines. Abbott eventually walked back the renewables statement. His dissembling didn’t help and didn’t encourage confidence in a state government under fire for a preventable human tragedy.

 

Any Hope of Change?

Public anger raised hopes for change in Texas. Abbot put several energy regulatory issues on his legislative agenda. Details aren’t clear yet, so it’s too soon to predict what might pass and what effect anything passed would have.

Many weren’t holding their breath.

Public attention in disasters, white hot for a time, notoriously fades. The 2022 election, when voters might throw out some of the culprits, seems ages away. Many other things will occupy the political space between now and then.

That brings us to two Texas politicians who took leave of the state while things

were bad. U.S.  Senator Ted Cruz, when caught heading for a vacation in Mexico, claimed he took the trip because his children besieged him to and he “wanted to be a good dad.” He flew back to Houston the day after he left, admitting he’d made a mistake. Attorney General Ken Paxton and his state senator wife found meetings in Utah they couldn’t miss.

People are mad at Cruz and Paxton, but their loyal followings remain.

By the time they face the voters again (Cruz 2024, Paxton 2022), both will likely have pivoted to the usual list of Republican boogeyman issues that have kept them and those like them in power all these years. We won’t bet against them. We wish we could.