Articles - Miscellanea

When we set out to test the philosophical foundations of Critical Race Theory (CRT), we subjected the theory to a number of important tests. The purpose of such tests was to determine whether or not the theory is rational, and whether or not the theory could stand up to the tests. No matter how many people favor CRT, and no matter how many people have convinced others that they should accept CRT, the real test is whether the philosophical foundations of the theory are sound. We have discovered that they are not. Let us look at the results of our tests.

Ethics is a theoretical study of moral right and wrong. Morality is the practice of what a person believes is right or wrong. Ethics is based upon some sort of standard that one accepts as a starting place. It could be an absolute standard, meaning that it is the same for all persons in all places at all times. It could be relative to persons, places, or times. An absolute standard is unchanging, whereas a relative standard is changeable. Absolute and relative are opposites.

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:

he decade of the 1960s was a very turbulent period. We have not fully recovered from all of the things that resulted from that decade: There were four major political figures who were assassinated (Martin Luther King Jr., Malcolm X, John F. Kennedy, and Robert F. Kennedy)—the Vietnam War—Cuban Missile Crisis—and at the end of the decade, we landed the first man on the moon and the Woodstock Festival occurred! During this time, there were the anti-war protests and the civil rights protests. By this time, the Postmodernist movement, having begun in the 1950s, began to take root in academic circles, and a first wave of those who would be influenced by this position were taught to reject “modernity.” Modernism roughly corresponds with the Enlightenment which occurred around 1650 and lasted at least through 1950. The primary focus during this time was epistemology—that is, how do we know, what are the conditions of knowledge, and what are the limits of knowledge? In the 1950s, first in Europe before the United States, all those things gained in the Enlightenment were rejected. It started in the arts, but quickly spread to all other disciplines, including science. Naturally, those committed to the scientific process were not simply going to ignore the challenge. To the postmodernist all knowledge and, therefore, truth itself, was seen as subjective, and rooted in each person’s experience. There is some objectivity in science, but postmodernists have given up any hope of rising above the subjective knowing of their own truths. Nancy Pearcey refers to this expansion of the postmodernists beyond the arts in the following:

 In an article titled “Insights for Apologetics from Other Disciplines,”  I focused on a number of things, but essentially, the necessity of good questions so as to (1) gain information from our opponents, (2) expose weaknesses in their arguments, (3) better understand what their objections are, and (4) ensure that we are discussing the real issues involved rather than missing the point.