Reframing Critical Race Theory

Welcome to The Reframers Blog!

Critical Race Theory, or CRT, has been a pervasive conversation in politics and the media for over a year. Specifically, many are in disagreement over whether it should be taught in K12 public schools.

We started our discussion by aiming to simply define CRT. It was both simpler and more complex than we thought.

To get the full experience, listen to podcast episode here.

Our goal as Reframers is to break down big topics like this, making it easier to ask questions, understand, and disagree without making others feel belittled or stupid.

We really wanted to dive into the arguments for & against teaching CRT in K12 schools, and get to the root of all the contention.

Each of us felt we had a lot to learn on the topic, as well as our own research and opinions we brought with us. However, as three white millennials, we felt it was important for us to acknowledge the elephant in the room early: are we really the best people to be talking about race and racism in America?

Zach admitted early in the episode that he feels a sense of hesitancy and anxiety talking about race as a conservative for fear of getting it wrong and being branded a racist. Erin and I thanked Zach for saying this, and for naming that concern, because it is so important to us to remain respectful and thoughtful when we have conversations about such serious subject matter.

We’re determined to have constructive and empathetic conversations about topics that usually start fights. Armed with this mission, we started our discussion by simply aiming to define CRT. It was both simpler and more complex than we thought.

First and foremost, we acknowledged that the terms “Critical Race Theory” and “CRT” have both taken on a life of their own in the media, with the acronym in particular becoming a strongly politicized word. We aimed to clearly define that Critical Race Theory is just that - a theory. It is a graduate-level academic legal theory, taught in some law schools. Right away, this gave new context to the argument about whether this is something that should be taught in K12 schools. It’s a very technical idea that provides a framework for studying how the law and society have been influenced by racism.

One of the main tenants in the theory is the idea that racism is embedded in our social organizations, legal systems, institutions, and policies to this day, and it’s not just a result of individual biases.

The theory argues that there is a sort of permanence to racism in these systems, that it exists in modern day and is going to continue to exist, therefore it’s something we are going to have to be aware of when we’re interacting with these systems. By the way, it’s a controversial theory on the academic level, not just something that is universally accepted. It’s a legal theory that you discuss and debate at the academic level.

After learning all of this, my question was: “Why are we all talking about this graduate-level theory in the context of teaching it in K12 schools?”

It’s become such a buzzword in the news - just type CRT into Google News and you’ll see dozens of articles within the last week alone. There’s a definite difference between the academic legal theory vs. what people mean in most of the conversations right now.

Basically, our observation is that CRT is being used as shorthand for the argument about talking about if/how we talk about racism in schools and in culture.

I genuinely wondered how it could possibly be a bad thing to have open and frank dialogue about racism in America, both in history and today. To me, it initially felt like the clear, wise answer would be to talk about race in our education system in a safe and age-appropriate level. Zach’s conflict comes from a place of not wanting to deny the evils of racism and its existence but also true concern about undermining and diminishing the founding of our nation and our society’s structure. He voiced concern that the addition of CRT discussion in schools would relabel groups of people as oppressors, especially if the conversation is continuing to label those people as current oppressors.

We identified two stereotypes that we notice have been greatly hindering our ability to talk to one another in thoughtful, open-minded, solutions-oriented ways.

There’s a perception that the right believes if someone is critical of our country, at all, you hate it.

On the other side, we see the idea on the left that we are all bad, that everything is broken, and we need to recognize this and dismantle and rebuild systems from scratch.

Basically, the left wants to burn it all down and start over, and nothing is worth saving. The right wants to keep everything, because everything is great as it is.

It is really hard to meet in the middle when we think like this. These polar opposite views are dangerous and unhelpful ways to view the world, and this siloed thinking doesn’t leave room to recognize flaws on our own sides and in our history with the goal of progress and improvement.

We discussed a lot more, trying to get real with each other and ourselves. I appreciated that Erin and Zach had done thoughtful research, but I want to reiterate that we do not want anyone to think that they can’t enter into a conversation about a topic that you don’t know a lot about, so long as you are there to learn, listen, and gain a new perspective. We want to model that exact concept for you, and for you to feel empowered to redefine disagreement in your own lives.

I encourage you to listen to the full podcast with us, and then consider having these conversations in your own life.

Join us,​

The Reframers

Kassie (today's author), Erin, & Zach