Philosophical Foundations of Critical Race Theory (2)
Critical Race Theory (hereafter as CRT) is on the lips of thousands of proponents and, apparently, an equally committed number of opponents. This series of articles explores a critical look at the philosophical foundations of CRT. The truth is that CRT is closely related to a number of disturbing cultural trends that seem to have gained incredible influence among our political organizations at the local, state, and national level, and also in our various places of employment, national teachers’ unions, social media outlets, and even the military. Briefly put, there are few places where this influence is not being felt.
The American Experiment (sometimes called the American “Creed”) is beautifully expressed in the Declaration of Independence which states:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness--that to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,--That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
You will notice that the emphasis here is on the individual, not a group. This is important, even though groups form themselves into local, state, and federal governments, with their own sets of laws, etc. This also seems to be the emphasis of Scripture (i.e., on the individual) who is responsible for his relationship to God (cf. Mark 16:15-16; Matthew 7:21ff.; etc.). CRT which is a sub-set of Identity Politics, turns the American Experiment upside down, since the stress is placed now on groups rather than individuals. The Jewish hatred for the Samaritans and the Jim Crow laws are clear examples of this type of racial prejudice. The American Civil Rights Movement that culminated in legislation to end segregation, and other unjust practices, was enacted in 1964, because the kind of bigotry that was being fought then was based on group prejudice. The same thing is being done in CRT. For instance, Tommy Curry in the Encyclopedia Britannica, defines CRT as “the view that race, instead of being biologically grounded and natural, is socially constructed and race, as a socially constructed concept, functions as a means to maintain the interests of the white population that constructed it.” Terms such as systemic racism, white privilege, oppressors, the oppressed, and others have been used to represent what indeed is a “social construct,” understanding social construct to mean something that has been invented by a certain class to describe, in this particular instance, another separate class. CRT starts with an assumption. It assumes that “racism is normal and permanent, and the problem is primarily that people—particularly white people—are failing to see, acknowledge, and address it. . . . We are to assume that racism is always taking place and our job is to examine situations for evidence of it” (Pluckrose and Lindsay 132-33). Special words have been invented to keep the propaganda pressure on in this terribly divisive civil environment. Such words as social justice, equity, conscious and unconscious bias, re-imagining, and diversity, equity, and inclusion, are used because they sound as if there is a noble and right purpose behind the agenda.
By way of contrast, we are looking at the philosophical foundations of CRT, and we have to test it by a different standard. One could simply adopt the agenda of CRT advocates and invent terms that ostensibly condemn another group, and even perhaps to shame that group into compliance. However, most philosophers follow the dictum first given by Socrates in The Republic (394d), where he said: “We must follow the argument wherever, like a wind, it may lead us.” To follow the evidence is to draw only such conclusions as are warranted by the evidence, which was often cited by Thomas B. Warren, one of my mentors in this quest. A number of careful philosophers use the same approach, because to fail to do so, is to commit fallacies in reasoning. Therefore, we go in a much different direction than the group whose motives appear to be to gain compliance from their targeted opponents. That approach is never right, no matter who uses it, and when and where it is done. Was such an approach often shamefully used in America? I have to admit that it was so used, perhaps often used in some places and times. Is there real racial prejudice still in various places in this country? Once again, there is little doubt that such exists in places.
Look in this different direction of which I speak. Following the evidence wherever it leads demands that we ask, “Where is the evidence for the conclusion, ‘All white people are the oppressors (all are evil), and all black people are the oppressed (innocent victims)’?” Modify this premise in some other possible ways, such as referring only to “all white males” or the like, and so long as the proposition is precisely stated, we are asking for the supporting evidence for such a conclusion. Logically, this is called a universal affirmative proposition which means that there are simply NO people in that particular class (the one named) who are not included. It is “all ________ people.” If this seems too extreme, we might change the proposition into a particular affirmative, but then it would read, “some white people” are such and so. However, this completely destroys CRT because “some” means (as used in logical argumentation) “one or more people,” in which case there is no complete group under consideration, but rather, only various individuals who are being discussed. We have already granted this proposition. Since we can have 1, 2, 3, or a larger number of people being considered, but smaller than “all,” there is no real conclusion to be drawn from the data. In logic, this is called a non-sequitur, meaning, “it does not follow.” In other words, any conclusion that includes a whole group turns out, in this case, to be a logical fallacy. The specific fallacy that is committed is called “hasty generalization.” It is committed when one jumps to a conclusion before they have sufficient data for that conclusion, or when they base a general statement on a sample that is too small, or when they formulate general rules from exceptional situations. In every case, the argument is faulty. If any case is being made, it is based entirely on subjective and highly emotional bases. There is no objective truth being affirmed here at all, consequently, no rational person will accept that conclusion.
My family has lived in the South for 48 years, but most everyone who knows us, also knows that my wife and I are originally from Michigan. I have heard someone say numerous times, “I’m sure glad that I was raised in the South.” This is a “regional snobbery,” and it appears to be based on the notion that people from the North (or any place other than the South) are not friendly enough (or some such thing). There are differences in the makeup of the population in most Northern states as over against Southern states, but the facts are actually just twisted in order to make an offensive (and, by the way, an incorrect) statement. It shows us, however, how easy it is to engage in forming personal stereotypes. For example, what comes immediately to mind when you think of blacks, whites, Poles, Irishmen, or Orientals? How about university professors, engineers, teachers, or salesmen? How about blondes, redheads, overweight people, and the like? How do we view Yankees, Southerners, Midwesterners, or Westerners? What stereotypes do you form in such a process?
Having lived in the Detroit area for a number of years, and having driven a truck in my uncle’s trucking company, I had many occasions to go into the city of Hamtramck, which was (and, probably still is) a large Polish community that is also a Detroit suburb. There were always the stereotypes about people who lived in Hamtramck, and I heard many of them (I was affected by them too). I am Slavic in background, and my dad’s parents came across to Ellis Island in 1906 on a German merchant vessel. My grandfather was from what is now the Slovakian Republic, directly east of Bratislava, the capital city. I give you this background, in order to inform you of my past. I heard the typical “Polack” jokes, and even offered a few of my own. Texans know these as “Aggie” jokes referring to Texas A & M University. Other regions have their own. But, people from Poland are Slavic, as am I. In fact, most eastern European countries are filled with people who are “Slavs” (Yugoslavs, Hungarians, Russians, Ukrainians, etc.). It might surprise you to learn that the word “slave” originated from “Slav” because the Slavic people were so often enslaved by Muslims, earlier in their history. In spite of the fact that this is my personal background, neither I nor any of my family had anything to do with slavery in the United States. We were not here at that time, and my people were dealing with their own issues (like the formation of the USSR, with all of its puppet states, behind the “iron curtain”). So, I say to the highly emotional people who are pushing for social justice, equity, and CRT, that I refuse to be judged for choices that I do not make, never had made, and likely never will make. I refuse to be a part of the new stereotype. In fact, as a Christian, I plan to continue to do everything I can do to make sure that no one (of any ethnic background, or any gender) is mistreated if I can affect the outcome. CRT is agenda driven, based on a logical fallacy, and clearly unethical at its roots.
Another fallacy often committed is called “poisoning the well.” It occurs when one says things that condition a negative response, before anything is set forth as an argument. This is a frequent tool used in an effort to unfairly (and improperly) smear the opposition. For instance, suppose you hear several, “every word that comes out of his mouth is a lie.” If you hear this repeatedly, then whenever you hear that person speak, you are expecting that message to be a lie. The ones who are offering that commentary are “poisoning the well,” effecting the outcome in advance. It has been said: “If you can’t answer a man’s arguments, all is not lost; you can still call him offensive names.” Those who are good at this can seek to silence the opposition through offensive statements. As such, even though this is listed as a “logical fallacy,” it turns out to be more a “psychological fallacy.” So, a person could be called a misogynist (strongly prejudiced against women), a racist, a bigot, and unpatriotic or undemocratic. He might well be suffering from “white privilege,” and therefore, be guilty of systemic racism. The one who advances these complaints against his opponents is making use of the “poisoning the well” fallacy.
There is no following of the evidence here, nor is there an attempt to answer the arguments of the opposition. It is simply either a “poisoning of the well” or a “hasty generalization,” so that whenever the person does talk, he is largely discredited before anyone hears him out, or one’s mind is already made up, but not upon the evidence. CRT fails the test of logical reasoning. Since we are all expected to prove our case to others (cf. 1 Peter 3:15; 1 Thessalonians 5:21, et al.), and since logical reasoning is the way to go about this, CRT is unmasked as nothing more than a highly emotionalized effort to societal change through propaganda and pressure. It is not a serious effort at seeking to teach the truth.
CRT advocates should (if they are trying to prove their position true) advance the deductive syllogism, valid in form, with true premises, that proves their conclusions to be true. In fact, when that is done, it would be impossible for the conclusion to be false. It would seem that they would be eager to do this, or, if that cannot be done, then perhaps they will take the less conclusive approach of applying the scientific method to their theory which would justify it as a seriously researched study. Such would set the view forward as a well-researched study that has the possibility of being correct. But, to the best of my knowledge at this juncture, neither approach has been taken, which means that this “theory” fails the logical test. All we are asking is let the evidence speak. Fair minded people will give it the hearing it deserves, and they can determine whether or not there is real justification for CRT. I have found no such justification for this position at all.
This is the second installment in a series of articles addressing the philosophical foundations of critical race theory appearing monthly throughout the remainder of 2021 (First article: https://warrenapologetics.org/articles-miscellanea/2021/8/27/philosophical-foundations-of-critical-race-theory-1). Dick Sztanyo studied Philosophy of Religion and Apologetics under Thomas B. Warren at Harding Graduate School of Religion, and has done doctoral studies at University of Dallas. He has authored an apologetics textbook, Graceful Reason: A Study in Christian Apologetics, along with Is Worldview Only a Buzzword?, and contributed to The Utterance of God. Sztanyo serves as a staff writer and regularly reviews for Sufficient Evidence.
WORKS CITED
Curry, Tommy. “Critical Race Theory” Encyclopedia Britannica, https://www.britannica.com/ topic/critical-race-theory.
Pluckrose, Helen, and James Lindsay. Cynical Theories. Durham: Pitchstone, 2020.
Socrates. The Republic.