Is any particular expression of it premised in epistemic skepticism? That is, are we able to reason together, to test particular assertions against evidence, and reach a shared conclusion, or must its claims be accepted on authority? If it cannot be questioned, its assertions collapse into fideism, a kind of dogma without reason. In that way, certain expressions of it may be a "religion," as many critics claim.
Notice I said "theories." Every unique expression of a theory that could fit under the umbrella of CRT has aspects that may explain particular observations best, and other aspects that explain what is observed less well. That's the nature of theories. There isn't one Critical Race Theory.
I will say that banning CRT because it is Marxist is foolish. You can't avoid the pitfalls of Marxism, if you don't know what it is. I studied Marxism up close; even young people don't automatically become advocates of whatever they are taught. That not how the liberal arts is supposed to work.
I think the present "conservative" freak-out over CRT is due to the fact that so much of the present "conservative" nationalism is in fact indoctrination.
And I think that lists of dueling lists of Black intellectuals proves that this argument is political and cultural, more than theological.
In any case, I should be able to pick out the premises and conclusion of any argument, and examine them. I don't need or want to "signal" anything beforehand.
Comments