Critical Race Theory
Critical Race Theory embraces a movement of left scholars, most of them scholars of
color, situated in law schools, whose work challenges the ways in which race and racial
power are constructed and represented in American legal culture and, more generally, in
American society as a whole. (Crenshaw et al., 1995, p. xiii)
CRT has its roots in US legal scholarship where it grew as a radical alternative to
dominant perspectives, not only the conservative “mainstream” paradigmatic views,
but also the apparently radical tradition of critical legal studies which, in the words of
Cornel West, “ ‘deconstructed’ liberalism, yet seldom addressed the role of deep-
seated racism in American life” (West, 1995, p. xi). Frustration with the silence on
racism prompted CRT scholars to foreground race and to challenge not only the foci
of existing analyses, but also the methods and forms of argumentation that were
considered legitimate (see, for example, Bell, 1980a; Crenshaw, 1988; Delgado, 1989;
Matsuda et al., 1993). In 1995 an article by Gloria Ladson-Billings and William F.
Tate, in the Teachers College Record, set out the first steps towards taking a CRT
perspective and thinking through its possible application and insights within the field
of education (Ladson-Billings & Tate, 1995). Both authors have further refined their
views in subsequent work (e.g. Ladson-Billings, 1998, 1999, 2005; Tate, 1997, 1999,
2005), and a new wave of radical scholars have begun to take forward the perspective
in novel ways and in relation to different issues and a wider range of minoritized
groups (see, for example, Dixson & Rousseau, 2005; Parker, 1998; Taylor, 1999;
Villenas, Deyhle & Parker, 1999).
Despite its name, CRT is not so much a theory as a perspective. That is, CRT
does not offer a finished set of propositions that claim to explain current situations
and predict what will occur under a certain set of conditions; rather, it is a set of
interrelated beliefs about the significance of race/racism and how it operates in
contemporary Western society, especially the US. In fact, the vast majority of CRT in
education (like CRT in law) focuses exclusively on the US. There is no reason,
however, why the underlying assumptions and insights of CRT cannot be transferred
usefully to other (post-) industrial societies such as the UK, Europe and Australasia.
... there is no canonical set of doctrines or methodologies to which we all subscribe.
(Crenshaw et al., 1995, p. xiii)
As with British antiracism, there is no single, unchanging statement of what CRT
believes or suggests. William Tate captures well the dynamic of CRT when he
describes it as “an iterative project of scholarship and social justice” (1997, p. 235).
Unlike antiracism, however, there are a series of key elements (perspectives and
insights) that can be taken as largely representative of a distinctive CRT position. In
addition, there are a series of more specific methodological and conceptual tools that
are often used by CRT writers but whose presence in a study is neither sufficient nor
necessary to identify it as part of CRT in education. This distinction, between defining
elements and conceptual tools, is used here as a heuristic device, meant to help clarify
thinking about the “shape” of CRT as an approach. I have found this approach useful
in discussions about CRT with colleagues and students, but it is by no means fixed.
As more writers add to the tradition, and priorities alter, it is quite likely that certain
features may change in status, or disappear, while new aspects might be added (see
figure 1). For the time being, however, this is a useful strategy that builds on a wide
range of existing approaches. For the sake of clarity, therefore, in the following
account I will try to present these elements and tools separately, although their use
and interpretation in the literature necessarily relies on a great deal of mutual citation
and application.