Our “why” is relatively straightforward. We believe that the more people that exist with a developing sense of critical consciousness the closer our world will get to being an equitable, socially just, liberated space for us all by enabling us to better self-correct as a human community. The #BlackLivesMatter, #MeToo, and modern social justice movements are the contemporary banners under which age-old calls for a less exploitative and more equitable society have historically been cast. Today, as we bear witness to the ongoing oppression of Black, Brown, and Indigenous people, as well as the backlash to naming and amplifying the ideas that posit this oppression exists -- we embrace the imperative of doing everything in our power to contribute to a society where everyone has the right to breathe, live, and thrive.

The space wherein people doing work to develop the critical consciousness of others has been a hotly contested and fraught space for quite some time. On the one side, current right-wing ideology posits that discussion of racial inequity is dangerous and should be silenced. However, on the left of the political spectrum, the work around inequity, awareness, and education has been critiqued for a myriad of reasons. Developers of important concepts in the field of Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) — the banner under which much of the work to develop critical consciousness and anti-racism among individuals and organizations occurs — are often critiqued for deepening the fragility of white audiences and pushing them further towards prejudice (DiAngelo, 2018; Schick 2000; Schick 2014). Literature dedicated to developing anti-racist positionalities among the public at-large saw tremendous growth in the wake of George Floyd’s murder in the summer of 2020 (Flood, 2020). In the US, the top two-selling books were Ibram X. Kendi’s How to Be an Anti-Racist and Robin DiAngelo’s White Fragility (Flood, 2020; McWhorter, 2020). Race2Dinner, an organization charging white women upwards of $2500/head to attend a dinner where two women of color engage participants in deconstructing racism within themselves, also saw a rise in patronage (Noor, 2020). Critics point out that unlearning racism is important but only the beginning step of living a life that fosters liberatory outcomes.

In the wake of the ongoing attack on Black, Brown and Indigenous lives across the US and throughout the world, attempts by the privileged elite to educate themselves through reading or hosting dinner parties have been critiqued as insufficient and contributing to the pacification of white peoples’ own white guilt. The work of developing more anti-racist individuals is difficult, complex, risky, and in need of approaches that emphasize collective liberation at a systemic level. DEI, for the left, doesn’t go far enough, and for the right, makes matters worse.

The technology sector also has not been immune to calls for greater accountability around anti-racism, but has arguably seen less uptake therein. Given the recent proliferation of literature at the intersections of critical race theory and Science and Technology Studies (STS), or what Ruha Benjamin (2019) calls race critical code studies, as well as increasing calls for critically conscious approaches to the current use of technology that include concepts like design justice, coded equity, and tools from the tech industry that contribute to, rather than detract from, the liberation of all people, we offer the concept of the CRQC in support of this emerging body of work (Benjamin 2019, Buolamwini et. al 2018, Costanza-Chock, 2021, D’Ignazio & Klein 2020, Eubanks 2018, Hampton 2021, Noble 2018, O’Neil 2016, Turner et. al 2021).

We also present this framework to support the development of better technology. Technologies made in absence of deep recognitions toward our pluralistic human community and what makes it so vibrant do not in fact serve everyone. Insofar as we have arrived at the technological epoch, we must recognize digital technology as a permanent part of our existence and thus include it in whatever model of liberation we collectively build towards (Bailey 2019, Benjamin 2019, Galloway 2020, O’Neill 2016).

As we stand on the precipice of companies like Google, IBM, and Microsoft achieving quantum supremacy, we must recognize the unknown potential of a world where computers operating on binary code may soon be supported by computers operating in quantum. If binary computers have been shown to replicate the same biases as the people coding them, producing a technological whitewashing of algorithms that reproduce societal injustices in housing, education, credit scoring, healthcare, surveillance and more, imagine the pitfalls of a society operating with quantum? Companies running algorithms under the veil of AI have reproduced racist social practices and admitted along the way that they aren’t sure how the algorithms themselves operate (Bishop, 2018, O’Neill 2016). If the uncertainty of these processes exists within the world of binary largely as a result of embedded human bias as scholars like Kathy O’Neill, Ruha Benjamin, Joy Buolamwini, Safiya Umoja Noble and others have shown, imagine the potential for such programs to run amok in the increasingly complicated world of quantum.