Bob Saad For School Board - Critical Theory

Critical Theory Is Not The Answer To Our Problems

Since the late 1970’s and early 1980’s, Critical Theory—and more specifically, Critical Race Theory (CRT)--has been increasingly advocated through America’s universities and colleges. By some accounts, Derrick Bell, a professor and activist from Harvard University is credited with popularizing Critical Theory through his advocacy of the concept beginning in the 1970’s. However, the modern roots of Critical Theory are most easily identified as a repackaging of the communist theories of Karl Marx, from more than 100 years earlier. As will be shown below, the congruence between the foundational principles of Critical Theory and Marxist Communism is so obvious that a simple comparison functionally proves that Critical Theory—and more specifically, Critical Race Theory—is for all practical purposes a repackaging of Marxist Communism, including all of its failures and limitations. In fact, it represents the antithesis of the constitutional, democratic republic on which the United States of American was founded and still exists.

Traditional Theories vs Critical Theories

The first thing to point out is that there is a fundamental difference between “traditional” theories and “critical” theories. In the broadest sense, traditional theories are somewhat passive in that they attempt to explain and understand situations based on empirical evidence, in pursuit of truth. This has been the most common approach to academic exploration, technological advancement, and problem resolution globally for millennia. In contrast, critical theories are more active (e.g. progressive, aggressive, etc.) in their approach, such that the ultimate goal of critical theories is to change situations rather than simply explain and understand them, as well as, to redact historical events to make them fit a desired narrative. As such, a critical approach is intentionally preferred by those who are looking for a way to advance a predetermined narrative. Hence, for those advocating a Critical Theory, supporting the narrative is of greater importance than obtaining empirical evidence and pursuing truth. Moreover, to the extent that empirical evidence and truth get in the way of the preferred narrative, that evidence and truth is discarded in favor of the narrative. As will be shown below, this is by and large what we find with those who advocate for Critical Race Theory.

When using the term, “critical,” in the context of critical theory, it is important for the reader to realize that the term has a very specific and limited meaning. It does not mean the same thing for which most would anecdotally use the term in a common conversation. For example, when we casually reference a bad meal that perhaps we have eaten, it can be said that we are being critical of the meal. This is a very common and informal usage of the term. However, when we refer to “critical” in the realm of an epistemological theory, we are very specifically referring to the term as it has been described above—that is, to change situations rather than simply explain and understand them, as well as, to redact historical events to make them fit a narrative.

For those who attempt to straddle the line between a traditional (e.g. empirical) approach and a critical (e.g. narrative) approach, they will find themselves hopelessly conflicted, as there is functionally very little overlap between the two approaches. For all practical purposes, the two epistemological approaches are diametric opposites. You either address a situation from an empirical approach or you address it from a critical approach. There is no value or resolution in trying to straddle the two.

Critical Theory vs Critical Race Theory

Critical Theory is a long-established and controversial Marxist approach to understanding and shaping social order. But, rather than being an exclusive and tightly limited theory, it more so serves as the umbrella approach for a variety of sub-applications.

At its core, Critical Theory explains social problems as conflicts between two groups: the “oppressors” and the “oppressed.” Within Critical Theory, there is no tangible consideration for personal responsibility, so regardless of what an individual might do to resolve conflict and ameliorate a situation, as long as that individual remains a member of his or her respective group, the conflict, in theory, remains. In a technical sense, Critical Theory would be considered a fatalistic approach to social order, which explains why proponents of Critical Theory are never fully appeased and why conflicts are never fully resolved. In fact, it would seem that Critical Theory requires that those conflicts can never be resolved. Again, rather than placing responsibility for conflicts at the personal level—where individual behavior can and should resolve conflict-- Critical Theory places responsibility for conflict at the group level—where conflict can never be resolved--short of the complete elimination of one or both groups.

Sub-categories of Critical Theory materialize when respective groups are labeled (often artificially and subjectively) and struggles are identified (or invented). For example, when Critical Theory is applied to conflicts within the justice or legal system, Critical Legal Theory is the name given to this application of Critical Theory. If Critical Theory is applied to group conflicts within the same ethnicity (for example, based on gender, socio-economic class, religion, etc.), Critical Social Theory is the name given to that application. Accordingly, when Critical Theory is specifically applied to conflicts said to exist between ethnic groups, Critical Race Theory is the name given to that application.

That said, since Critical Race Theory is the most current and widespread application of Critical Theory that has infiltrated large parts of American society--such as through public school programs and curricula, as well as through the Black Lives Matter professional movement--the rest of this discussion will focus primary on Critical Race Theory.

How Has Critical Theory and Critical Race Theory Been Advanced?

Countless students and teachers who have received their degrees from major American universities since the 1970’s, have gone on to introduce Critical Theory (and more specifically, Critical Race Theory) at the elementary, middle, and high school levels in the years following their matriculation. Now, after several decades of this trend, we find that Critical Race Theory (CRT) has become the de facto foundation for character education, social studies, literature appreciation, and staff development--especially in our public schools--and we are seeing the dire and direct results of this failed social experiment through the broader dysfunction of our local communities.

For decades, Critical Theory has been the “unnamed” force behind a multitude of seemingly innocuous concepts and societal initiatives. But, more recently, its proponents have been far more overt about identifying, by name, the theory that underpins these concepts and initiatives. Still, many, if not most, in our society and academic institutions do not know that what they are seeing and teaching is actually Critical Race Theory. For example, below is a list of commonly mentioned concepts and initiatives that most people do not realize are modern-day expressions of Critical Race Theory.

Equity of Outcomes
Institutional Racism
Structural Inequity
Structural Determinism
Internalization
Implicit Bias
Microaggressions
White Fragility
White Privilege
Cultural Competence
Intersectionality
Standpoint Epistemology / Standpoint Theory (One’s perspective is elevated to the level of truth.)
The “Narrative” or “Story-Telling”
Naming One’s Own Reality or Naming One’s Own Truth
Mandatory Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Training
Anti-Equality (e.g. Equality is a concept that oppressors use to limit the mobility of the oppressed.)
Anti-Racial Neutrality (e.g. Race-neutrality is a tool used by oppressors against the oppressed.)
Anti-Color-Blindness (e.g. Color-Blindness is a tool that oppressors use to dehumanize the oppressed.)
Anti-Scientific (e.g. The scientific method is a tool used by oppressors against the oppressed.)
Anti-Technology (e.g. Technology is a tool used by oppressors against the oppressed.)
Anti-Truth (e.g. Truth is a tool used by oppressors against the oppressed.)
Anti-Assimilation (i.e. There is no value in giving up some of one’s group identity, in order to be part of greater, more influential, collaborative, and cooperative community success.)
Anti-Nuclear Family (Father, Mother, Children)
Anti-Patriarchal (Father is not respected as the head of a household.)
Anti-Theistic (i.e. Tangible belief in God and Godly principles is not allowed.)
Anti-Fact-Check (i.e. The opinion of the “oppressed” person or group can never be fact-checked by anyone other than the person or group providing the narrative.)
Reverse Racism (i.e. Fighting Perceived Racism with Counter-Racism)
Redacted and Revisionist History and Social Studies (i.e. Re-writing history to meet a new narrative)

Do any of these concepts sound familiar? For many, they represent common terminology heard and taught in the Public School environment, especially within Character Education initiatives and curricula. Even though proponents of these concepts may not openly admit that they are advocating for Critical Race Theory, they are without question doing so. Even when students, teachers, administrators, board trustees, community members, activists, etc. claim that they are not advocating for Critical Race Theory, but then go on to support and endorse the concepts and terminology listed above, they are functionally and willingly advocating for Critical Race Theory—either out of ignorance or surreptitiously. Often, these concepts are integrated into broader initiatives for social emotional learning (SEL), and admittedly, when they are hidden within Character Education materials, they are sometimes hard to identify. Discernment is necessary.

Anecdotally, Critical Race Theory seems to have caused more divisions and consternation than it has ever resolved. And unwittingly, by absorbing Critical Race Theory, well-meaning community members—including the countless teachers and administrators that we love—have endorsed a social system that works against everything for which they say they stand. I know this first hand, because I personally used to advocate for the Critical Race Theory position, and I even set up an event for a Critical Race Theroy speaker to present the concept to a group of peers. That was in the 1980’s, and I regret that as a college student I naively embraced what my professors were saying, without pragmatically looking at the evidence. Now, after several decades of looking at the evidence, I can conclude that Critical Race Theory has never produced the sort of collaborative diversity, equity, and inclusion that its proponents implicitly and explicitly claimed it would.

In fact, instead of diversity, Critical Theories of all types demands unwielding uniformity of opinion by cancelling (often by threats and/or violence) any voices that bring differing perspectives. Similarly, instead of equity of opportunity for success, Critical Theory demands equality of outcomes, under the guise of equity. And, instead of inclusion, Critical Theory pushes otherwise loving and mutually supportive community members away from each other by exploiting identified differences (racial, religious, sexual, political, etc.) instead of exploring common goals on a personal level and societal assimilation under a pluralistic constitution on the macro level.

To Understand Critical Theory, You Have To Understand Marxist Communism

As mentioned above, Critical Theory—and more specifically, Critical Race Theory--is a modern expression of the Marxism that was popularized in the late 1800s--and later Lennonism from the 1900s. Karl Marx, a functional materialist atheist, rejected the notion of a benevolent, personal God that has created all people as equals, and endowed them with unalienable rights including life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (c.f. the US Declaration of Independence, 1776, https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/declaration-transcript ). Not surprising, Marx proposed a diametrically opposing social and governmental construct to that on which the United States was founded. In Marx’s (and Lennon’s) atheistic view, the State replaces God, and as such, situational ethics (even lawlessness and anarchy) replaces the law of God and any law that has its basis in theistic belief. This fact alone puts Marx’s perspectives at odds statistically with at least 85% of the world’s population, who claim some personal belief in God.

As much as the United States of America was founded on theistic principles, Marx’s Communism was predicated on anti-religion. And as such, when constituents in America appeal to their “God-given rights,” this line of argumentation is of little value within a communist system in which individual rights are malleable, revokable, and subservient to the motives and intents of the State’s controlling oligarchs. Again, in Marxism, there is no room for personal rights that are bestowed on humans from a loving Creator. Rather, Marxism explicitly seeks to exchange the place God in the society with oligarchs who are empowered to control every aspect of their constituents’ lives. The long-standing pursuits of loving one’s neighbor and seeking truth—two theistic concepts that have been foundational to the advancement of every successful society for thousands of years—are replaced with ever-shifting “narratives” that oligarchs utilize to manipulate their constituents. No rule or law is too small or too large to break in order to advance those narratives. In fact, under the Marxist Communist system, the pursuit of truth through evidence and reason is seen as an enemy, because truth can easily expose the damaging results of the programs, organizations, and institutions that implement Marxist ideals.

Show Me The Link Between Marxist Communism and Critical Race Theory

Now, look at the list below that illustrates the multiple, foundational levels of congruence between Critical Race Theory and Marxist Communism. On every one of the items below, Critical Theory and Marxist Communism are in full agreement. The level of congruence between the two systems on so many foundational issues should remove all doubt that they are functionally the same.

Are all people created equal? No.
Does evidence matter when making decisions? No.
Does sound reasoning matter when making decisions? No.
Is objectivity heralded as an academic virtue? No.
Is neutrality heralded as a judicial virtue? No.
Is liberal thought heralded as a social virtue? No.
Does breaking the law matter when advancing a narrative? No.
Is there a benevolent God? No.
Is there any benefit to trying to follow God’s laws? No.
Do all people have unalienable rights bestowed by God? No.
Is hard work a key to success? No.
Is getting the correct answer in academics, such as in Math or Science, necessary? No.
Societal issues are generally crouched in terms of the struggle between “oppressor” and “oppressed” groups. Yes.
Uniformity is required; individuality is suppressed. Yes.
Violence and threats are welcomed and acceptable tools for advancing a narrative. Yes.
Neither Marxist Communism, nor Critical Race Theory has produced success in any country in which either has been tried. Yes.

What Should We Do About This?

In light of all that we know about Critical Theory—and Critical Race Theory in particular--I strongly suggest that School Boards set District policy that rejects the teaching of Critical Race Theory as anything other than a failed experiment. Do not embrace Critical Race Theory as a District value, and do not sponsor events where Critical Race Theory or any of its tenants are taught or encouraged. In comparison, altruism and honesty are much better social values to embrace as a District, and 6000 years of recorded history confirms that they indeed work.

References and Further Reading

https://sites.google.com/view/bobsaadforschoolboard

Google Sites

Report abuse