radical take on the role of race/racism in contemporary education.[2] What they will
not find is a unitary or dogmatic account of how things are and how they must be.
CRT began in the 1970s and 1980s as a movement of radical scholars, mostly people
of minoritized backgrounds, working in US law schools. It was introduced into
educational studies in the mid 1990s (Ladson-Billings & Tate 1995). There is no
single canonical statement of CRT but certain elements have emerged as central
themes that characterize the movement. The first of these is the central role accorded
to racism, which is seen as a subtle and pervasive force in society that is so deep
rooted as to appear ‘normal’ to the majority. CRT is also characterised by a critique of
liberalism, which points to the failure of notions such as ‘merit’, ‘neutrality’ and
‘color-blindness’ which masquerade as fair and just but, because of the uneven
playing field of contemporary racist society, they actually function to ensure the
continuation of race inequality.
Building on a long tradition of oral histories and subversive storytelling, CRT writers
sometimes adopt a narrative approach and, distinctively, they give particular
prominence to the experiential knowledge of people of color. This has been a point of
controversy with the academic mainstream but reflects CRT’s constructivist view of
knowledge and its determination to challenge the common-sense assumptions that
often encode majoritarian interests. This deep commitment to promoting real change
in the position of minoritized groups is a central tenet of CRT and fuels its
disenchantment with traditional notions of civil rights progress. Critical race scholars
draw inspiration from their activist predecessors but they are far from content with the
scale of changes that have been won to date. Indeed, a central concept is the ‘interest
convergence principle’ which notes the benefits to White people at the heart of even
the most celebrated civil rights cases (See Bell 1992; Delgado 1995).
CRT is a vibrant and changing movement. It is characterized by the development of a
range of off-shoot perspectives, such as Latina/o CRT (‘LatCrit’) and Critical Race
Feminism (Delgado & Stefancic 1998; Wing 1997; Yosso 2005). Each perspective
reflects key aspects of foundational CRT but also adds distinctive elements of its own.
The interchange between these perspectives is frequently unpredictable, often highly
productive and, almost always, respectful and grounded in a firm grasp of the work
that has gone before. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said of all critiques,
especially those that over-simplify and caricature CRT itself.
Question: When is a debate not a debate?
Answer: When one side isn’t listening.
In addition to offering a more accurate picture of CRT, a second reason for replying
here is to put to rest the idea that I have somehow refused to engage with criticism in
the past. In the conclusion to his current paper, for example, Cole states:
Elsewhere (Cole, 2009, chapter 5), I have discussed David Gillborn’s
reluctance to engage in debate with Marxists. (manuscript, p. 14)
And
Dare I urge Gillborn, in a comradely way, to reconsider this reluctance to talk
with Marxists... (manuscript, p. 14)