OT critical race theory

[Nic]

https://www.britannica.com/topic/critical-race-theory

*critical race theory (CRT)*, intellectual
<https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/intellectual> movement and
loosely organized framework of legal analysis based on the premise
<https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/premise> that race
<https://www.britannica.com/topic/race-human> is not a natural,
biologically grounded feature of physically distinct subgroups of human
beings but a socially constructed (culturally invented) category that is
used to oppress and exploit people of colour. Critical race theorists
hold that the law and legal institutions in the United States are
inherently racist <https://www.britannica.com/topic/racism> insofar as
they function to create and maintain social, economic, and political
inequalities between whites and nonwhites, especially African Americans
<https://www.britannica.com/topic/African-American>.

Critical race theory (CRT) was officially organized in 1989, at the
first annual Workshop on Critical Race Theory, though its intellectual
origins go back much farther, to the 1960s and ’70s. Its immediate
precursor <https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/precursor> was the
critical legal studies
<https://www.britannica.com/topic/Critical-Legal-Studies> (CLS)
movement, which dedicated itself to examining how the law and legal
institutions serve the interests of the wealthy and powerful at the
expense of the poor and marginalized
<https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/marginalized>. (CLS, an
offshoot of Marxist-oriented critical theory
<https://www.britannica.com/topic/critical-theory>, may also be viewed
as a radicalization of early 20th-century legal realism
<https://www.britannica.com/topic/philosophy-of-law/Realism#ref335114>,
a school of legal philosophy according to which judicial decision making
<https://www.britannica.com/topic/decision-making>, especially at the
appellate level, is influenced as much by nonlegal—political or
ideological—factors as by precedent and principles of legal reasoning.)
Like CLS scholars, critical race theorists believed that political
liberalism <https://www.britannica.com/topic/liberalism> was incapable
of adequately addressing fundamental problems of injustice in American
society (notwithstanding legislation and court rulings advancing civil
rights <https://www.britannica.com/topic/civil-rights> in the 1950s and
’60s), because its emphasis on the equitable treatment under the law of
all races (“colour blindness”) rendered it capable of recognizing only
the most overt and obvious racist practices, not those that were
relatively indirect, subtle, or systemic. Liberalism was also faulted
for mistakenly presupposing the apolitical nature of judicial decision
making and for taking a self-consciously incremental
<https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/incremental> or reformist
approach that prolonged unjust social arrangements and afforded
opportunities for retrenchment and backsliding through administrative
delays and conservative <https://www.britannica.com/topic/conservatism>
legal challenges. Unlike most CLS scholars, however, critical race
theorists did not wish to abandon the notions of law or legal rights
altogether, because, in their experience, some laws and legal reforms
had done much to help oppressed or exploited people.

In their work /Critical Race Theory: An Introduction/, first published
in 2001, the legal scholars Richard Delgado (one of the founders of CRT)
and Jean Stefancic discuss several general propositions that they claim
would be accepted by many critical race theorists, despite the
considerable variation of belief among members of the movement. These
“basic tenets” of CRT, according to the authors, include the following
claims: *_(1) Race is socially constructed, not biologically natural._*
(2) Racism in the United States is normal, not aberrational: it is the
common, ordinary experience of most people of colour. (3) Owing to what
critical race theorists call “interest convergence” or “material
determinism,” legal advances (or setbacks) for people of colour tend to
serve the interests of dominant white groups. Thus, the racial hierarchy
<https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hierarchy> that
characterizes American society may be unaffected or even reinforced by
ostensible <https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ostensible>
improvements in the legal status of oppressed or exploited people. (4)
Members of minority groups periodically undergo “differential
racialization,” or the attribution
<https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/attribution> to them of
varying sets of negative stereotypes
<https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/stereotypes>, again
depending on the needs or interests of whites. (5) According to the
thesis of “intersectionality” or “antiessentialism,” no individual can
be adequately identified by membership in a single group. An African
American <https://www.britannica.com/topic/African-American> person, for
example, may also identify as a woman, a lesbian
<https://www.britannica.com/topic/lesbianism>, a feminist
<https://www.britannica.com/topic/feminism>, a Christian
<https://www.britannica.com/topic/Christianity>, and so on. Finally, (6)
the “voice of colour” thesis holds that people of colour are uniquely
qualified to speak on behalf of other members of their group (or groups)
regarding the forms and effects of racism
<https://www.britannica.com/topic/racism>. This consensus
<https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/consensus> has led to the
growth of the “legal story telling” movement, which argues that the
self-expressed views of victims of racism and other forms of oppression
provide essential insight into the nature of the legal system.

Consider (1) Race is socially constructed, not biologically natural. I
agree there is a social construct, but the biological aspect is also
very real. -Nic