The post-modern social science framework of “critical race theory” is well-known in certain academic circles and trending in corporate settings. CRT-inspired concepts and terminology– such as “white privilege,” “intersectionality,” “implicit bias,” “microaggressions,” and “systemic racism”—are increasingly used in ethnic studies curricula in higher education. Robin DiAngelo’s NYT best-seller “White Fragility” (2018) brought mainstream attention to some CRT concepts and terminology. This year, the death of George Floyd served as the impetus for many institutions, including corporate employers, governmental entities, and some K-12 school systems, to adopt responsive training for employees and students. In some cases, existing EEO and diversity training programs were enhanced to target anti-racism issues.

Critics have charged that CRT training itself contains racial stereotypes, assigns blame to individuals based solely on their race and sex, and imputes race discrimination as the reason for all disparate outcomes in society. Some employees have complained that being subjected to CRT training constitutes workplace harassment and/or discrimination. Proponents of CRT contend that disparate outcomes can only or best be explained by lingering, systemic racism. President Trump generated controversy in September when OMB Director Russell Vought released a memo instructing federal agencies to identify CRT training within federal agencies, with an eye to stop funding such programs. President Trump also issued an executive order forbidding such training by federal contractors. Our speakers will discuss the background and utilization of CRT, and explore whether the use of CRT (or similar theories) in workplace or K-12 contexts raises legal issues. They will grapple with the foundational question: Is CRT’s focus on race contrary to the traditional goal of a color blind society?

— Mike Gonzalez, Senior Fellow, Douglas and Sarah Allison Center for Foreign Policy and Angeles T. Arredondo E Pluribus Unum Fellow, The Heritage Foundation
— Peter N. Kirsanow, Partner, Benesch, Friedlander, Coplan & Aronoff LLP
— Professor Daniel B. Rodriguez, Harold Washington Professor of Law, Northwestern University Pritzker School of Law
— Professor Daria Roithmayr, Richard L. and Antoinette S. Kirtland Professor of Law, USC Gould School of Law
— Moderator: Mark Pulliam, Contributing Editor, Law & Liberty

Subscribe to The Federalist Society's Teleforum in Apple Podcasts (and leave a 5-star review, please!), or by RSS feed. For all our podcasts in one place, subscribe to the Ricochet Audio Network Superfeed in Apple Podcasts or by RSS feed.

There are 2 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. colleenb Member

    Interesting. I think that the gentleman that spoke about the problem of how CRT plays out in the real world was exactly right. I did not really feel that the pro-CRT spoke to that in any significant way.

    • #1
  2. Taras Coolidge

    Prof. Roithmayr‘s argument that minority schools are underfunded is, I think, a long-ago exploded myth.

    Inner-city schools in places like New York City and Newark spend an insane amount of money per student, to no avail.  If only the problem were so easy to fix!

    On the subject of so-called “white privilege”, statistics show that if such a thing exists then Asians have more of it than whites do.

    • #2