Critical Race Theory (CRT) is essentially a Jim Crow detector. When a person connects legislation with ALL its effects, s/he becomes “woke”. Is that not the real CRT as it was taught in a few university classrooms in the 1970s? The anti-CRT clamoring we hear in the news today is like protests over peanut butter’s negative effects on the environment; it’s a “nothing burger” that makes up this astroturf movement (grassroots without real roots). It did, however, succeed in creating something: It created a boogieman on the horizon, a Bigfoot reputed to be after your jobs and your kids, and for the sake of everything sacred, you’d better be on the lookout for each step it takes that brings it closer to you and your loved ones.

Convincing unsophisticated people there is a scary boogieman imo is like starting a fire in the attic of a massive medieval building. It leaves two rather likely outcomes: That fire WILL spread, and it will likely challenge the entire structure. Anti-CRT rhetoric takes it a step farther by suggesting that the boogiemen live among us like the aliens in 1988’s scifi movie, They Live. POC of all types should be alarmed at this. The real news for POC imo is that Bigfoot is indeed out there, and he’s after YOUR history, YOUR pride, and YOUR God-given right to prosperity, protection, and the pursuit of happiness. This Bigfoot thinks you’re after revenge, replacement, or reparations.

Let’s get down to brass tacks here: The purpose of this anti-CRT noise we hear today is to create fear over something that never existed in order to prevent free speech among black people and to diminish the influence of the institutions they might found or direct. It makes it illegal to make white people uncomfortable ANYTIME or ANYWHERE even if we’re only talking about the great great grandparents of some of them. It’s an infringement of the 1A and an Orwellian attempt at thought control designed to get people to police themselves.

GOP politicians seem to know that their followers won’t look up definitions. Neither their leaders nor their media speak directly and in detail about any terms or historical events. They speak about the threat imposed on noble, virtuous, and beautiful things like a child’s ability to naturally see good in other people. It would appear they are striving to exploit the lack of academic rigor… in their own people.

Denial of today’s Jim Crow suggests to me that real CRT should be dusted off and used with today’s adults SO THEY COULD DECIDE FOR THEMSELVES. If CRT connects policy with outcomes and leaves the responsibility of measuring the racism in it all to the students, I can’t see how it could be considered an indoctrination program.

How’s this for an example of systematic, institutionalized racism? In 1959, a young Marion Hood applied to Emory University’s medical school. He was told in a brief reply, “…we are not authorized to consider for admission a member of the Negro race…”, and got his $5 application fee back.

Now, if the author of that reply letter was the source of the racism, do you think he’d type it neatly, identify himself, and include Mr. Hood’s $5.00? If Mr. Clegg was operating on his own as an individual who believes it’s incumbent upon him to prevent race mixing – as his own mission and not as part of the university – would he handle his racist agenda in this way?

The formality on display here strongly suggests that Mr. Clegg, the author of the reply, was probably not the originator of the policy. He, thus, appears to be simply complying with a policy created by somebody else. Of course, evidence is not the same as proof. Nevertheless, this letter and our knowledge of the fact that black people simply were barred from professions, neighborhoods, etc. points out what we already know: In 1959, racism was institutionalized and deployed deliberately and systematically. 1959 may seem like a long time ago; however, 1959 people are today’s “boomers”, and they are still very much around. The date has changed; many of them have NOT. Of course, the mere existence of people who lived in 1959 is not proof of the existence of racism from 1959. However, we do have evidence that many of 2024’s people remain fond of the relics of Jim Crow that still exist today – like Confederate monuments and segregated water fountains. That suggests rather strongly that they haven’t changed much.

That saying about horses being led to water may apply here also. MAGA has demonstrated the power of stubbornness: A human being hellbent on maintaining a particular worldview will NOT let go of it even when presented with annoying things like verified facts. This is why argumentation seems like a waste of time.

IMO, EVERYBODY needs to see how laws with no racist vocabulary can lead to racist outcomes, which is what real CRT is all about. For example, funding public education with property taxes can lead to a residential and/or educational disparity on racial lines. Similarly, a completely unconstrained 2A can also lead to a disparity of its impacts on racial lines. Even environmental policies that disregard harm to the air, ground, or water can be arguably considered racist if it’s mostly POC who have to deal with the contamination of any of them.

Imagine a CRT-for-adults show on PBS called “The Week in CRT”. It would present SUBSTANTIATED examples of institutionalized, systematic racism like the conditions that prompted the creation of the Crown Act or insights into legislation proposed to shield white people from discomfort or guilt. Maybe the anti-CRT warriors already view PBS as “leftist activism” because of shows like “Finding Your Roots”.

So, why would I propose a program with little chance of being implemented? It’s because we still need Ida B. Wellses to do their thing in today’s world. Born 2 or 3 years prior to “emancipation”, she documented the Jim Crow warzone because people in the North didn’t believe the reports of atrocities coming out of the South. They were told that “reconstruction” was occurring for the purpose of equitable and fair treatment of former slaves. The news of the 14th Amendment and the Civil Rights Acts of 1866, 1875, 1957, 1964, 1968, 1991 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 could certainly give the impression that racism is no longer institutionalized. Her job was not to go around imposing ideas on people; she sought to have convincing accounts of real events do that all by themselves, which is exactly what I am advocating via these very words.

In the last decade of the 1800s when Confederates finished licking their wounds, they realized they needed to improve their image. They, thus, invented the narrative that the Civil War was about states’ rights because that seems like a noble reason to take up arms. It was a battle over the truth, and they stirred up a lot of distrust without the help of Facebook or Instagram.

Wells learned that a soap box wouldn’t be enough because too many people thought she was exaggerating for her personal benefit. It’s like an old school version of /r/NothingEverHappens. Thus, she documented events in great detail, including the names of people and places involved, a practice that provided readers a way to verify her reports and/or have a hard time diminishing them.

Marion Hood’s rejection from Emory was discussed on Reddit. I recommend checking it out in order to get a sense of the wide range of opinions out there… so you might decide for yourself if these ideas are foolish or if they represent a significant threat to POCs in America. You may want to add your own opinions there OR here; I’ll certainly respond to comments made here in good faith.

–end–