'Critical race theory' divides. Maybe that's the point? U.S. race history isn’t a theory.
Opinion: 'Critical race theory' means whatever supporters or critics say it does, which keeps us divided on history and race. It doesn't have to be this way.
We’re never going to get anywhere if we’re arguing about words and semantics instead of ideas and goals – and maybe that’s the point?
The Arizona Supreme Court struck down a portion of the state budget signed by Gov. Doug Ducey over the summer that banned the teaching of “critical race theory” in K-12 schools.
That won’t be the end of the discussion. About two dozen other states are in the throes of a similar fight with legislation and court decisions setting up a patchwork of laws that would be destined to end up in front of the U.S. Supreme Court.
Fine. But this could all be solved with some compassion and kindness.
'Critical race theory' doesn't mean anything
The problem with “critical race theory” is that the phrase doesn’t mean anything.
Anyone who would debate the importance of teaching history as accurately and completely as possible isn’t fit for a conversation on how to educate children.
But that expression – in all its liberal glory – has allowed racists, race baiters and anyone who wants their vote on positions from school board to the U.S. Senate to hijack it into a conversation over minutiae and flat-out distortions.
An expression such as “America is a racist nation” allows actual racists to gain support from otherwise good people who don’t want to be lumped in with skinheads and Klan members.
Simply changing that message to “American history includes a Native genocide and Black African slavery, and the effects of each can be seen in public policy and law at all levels of government” is fact-based and can’t be debated. (It’s also more specific, which is always good in a debate.)
If we’re going to move forward as a nation and create more opportunity where there is systemic exclusion, this is something we have to address.
Reducing this to a catchphrase solves nothing
The problem is that we’re not a nation of nuance. We’re a nation of bold catchphrases and headlines.
Liberals will dig in on their definition.
Conservatives won’t hear of it.
And good people will get caught on the wrong side when they hear phrases such as “all white people are racist.”
They’ll say that they’ve never used slurs against Black people. They’ll say that they’ve never participated in a Charlottesville-style march. They’ll say that they have Black friends.
And they’ll be right.
Then they’ll miss real opportunities to improve education in ways that help people understand how and why Black people, Native people and other people of color are underrepresented in statistics that point to upward economic mobility and success but are overrepresented in numbers that point toward crime and poverty.
Without this understanding, the problems will persist, trapping people who need the most help into a generational cycle that has wasted entirely too much potential already.
Let's focus on ideas, not semantics
Our nation’s history with race isn’t a theory.
Neither is our nation’s current framework, replete with exclusionary voting laws and outdated policing models that put authorities at odds with the communities they serve.
Teach them both.
The only way we’re going to make any progress on issues that have a disproportionate effect on people of color is if we’re speaking the same language.
Words and semantics can’t be as important as ideas and goals. And if we focus on the wrong things, we’ll never get anywhere.
Then, again, maybe that’s the point?
Conservatives say “critical race theory” to excite their supporters, which can include unabashed racists.
Liberals say “critical race theory” to excite their supporters, which often includes victims of racism.
Neither side seems concerned with teaching our future generations how to show kindness and how to unite rather than divide. Then again, maybe liberal and conservative leaders don’t want to unite as much as they want to stay in power.
Maybe the best way to do that is to keep us arguing instead of improving?
Maybe that’s the point?
Greg Moore is a columnist at The Arizona Republic, where this column originally appeared. Follow him on Instagram and Twitter: @SayingMoore