CRT: Conspiracy or Critique?

Jeanette E. Sherbondy • January 18, 2022

Although it’s been around since the 1970s, Critical Race Theory has been the talk of the town since May 2021. It’s a hot topic, especially when associated with schools and education.

It’s suggested that CRT is a conspiracy for making White kids feel bad, but there is no evidence that it is being taught in elementary, middle, or high schools.

Nor is it a training program for diversity and inclusion, as was erroneously stated in an executive order issued by President Trump in September 2020, his “Executive Order on Combating Race and Sex Stereotyping” (E.O. 13950, 85 FR 60683).

Critical Race Theory is a specialized field of analysis of the law, a sub-niche of graduate studies in law schools. It is “critical” because it critiques; that is, it analyzes. It is not critical as in condemning, or in dangerous, or risky, or crucial. CRT evaluates merits and faults in our laws.

Following on the civil rights movement in the 1960s, legal scholars began examining our legal system to uncover the systemic biases embedded in it. This was called CLS, or Critical Legal Studies.

Law scholars found that systemic bias comes down to racism even if that word is not mentioned. The subject matter is not about the biases and prejudices of individual persons. It is more than that. CRT seeks to discover the reason(s) why the United States continues to be racist because of how its laws are written and enforced even though they don’t appear to discriminate.

By the 1980s, the term “Critical Race Theory” started to be used instead of Critical Legal Studies to refer to this type of research. CRT has expanded to include not only law, but social studies, literature, and history. A good definition of CRT is, “a collection of activists and scholars interested in studying and transforming the relationship among race, racism, and power” (suggested by University of Alabama School of Law Professor Richard Delgado, co-founder of CRT, and legal writer Jean Stefancic).

These are some of the questions that the scholars are trying to answer:

· Why do Black Americans have a higher mortality rate?

· Why is there so much police violence against Black Americans?

· Why do schools funnel Black pupils into prisons?

· Why is there not enough affordable housing?

· Why is the rate of death among Black women in childbirth so high?

In short, as Janel George writes in “A Lesson on Critical Race Theory,” Critical Race Theory is the “acknowledgement that racism is a normal feature of society and is embedded within systems and institution, like the legal system, that replicate inequality. This dismisses the idea that racist incidents are aberrations, but instead are manifestations of structural and systemic racism.”

So, why does CRT cause so much political uproar? The panic about it being taught, or going to be taught, in primary and secondary schools reveals that the public does not know that it is written for “graduate level audiences, such as those in law school or practicing lawyers, academics, and policymakers, not high school or even undergraduate students,” as explained by Stephen Menendian in “Behind the Absurd Attacks on Critical Race Theory.” It assumes the reader is already familiar with legal concepts, but a student who is not be able to understand the legal frameworks would not be able to make any sense of it.

Menendian goes on to suggest that CRT has been redefined to stand in for, or symbolize, something that the public reads and reacts to with panic or hysteria. Fox News has used the term CRT 1,300 times in less than four months. “Why? Because Critical Race Theory has become a new boogie man for people unwilling to acknowledge our country’s racist history and how it impacts the present.”

So, the real question is: Why all the histrionics about CRT now? In their article, “Why are States Banning Critical Race Theory?” Rashawn Ray and Alexandra Gibbons write, “Opponents fear that CRT admonishes all White people for being oppressors while classifying all Black people as hopelessly oppressed victims. These fears have spurred school boards and state legislatures from Tennessee to Idaho to ban teachings about racism in classrooms.”

CRT studies racism in social institutions, in the structure of those institutions, not in individuals. Individuals may end up contributing to on-going racist policies and customs whether they are conscious of what they are doing or not.

The real problem is in the social institutions: the criminal justice system, education system, labor market, housing market, and healthcare system. If we want to heal our nation of racism and discrimination, then we need to examine the racism that is, according to Ray and Gibbons, “embedded in laws, regulations, rules, and procedures that lead to differential outcomes by race. Sociologists and other scholars have long noted that racism can exist without racists.” Racism is embedded in the law.

In conclusion, school children are not being taught Critical Race Theory and couldn’t understand it if they were.

CRT is not a criticism of White persons, but of social institutions. Institutions can be analyzed to understand how racism is perpetuated, even though individual people may not consider themselves racist.

However, the idea of teaching about race in the schools disturbs many people. Children see discrimination around them, and they realize that life is better for Whites, but they don’t know why. Teachers try to explain even though they don’t quite understand it themselves. College students are upset about how little they have been taught about it. They are upset with their parents, teachers, and schools for not adequately explaining this situation to them.

As Ray and Gibbons say: “If we love America, we should want it to be the best it can. Rather than run from the issue of racism in America, we should confront it head on. Our kids and country will be better for it.”

We can find good ways of doing this, but not by pretending it doesn’t exist.

“Making laws outlawing critical race theory confirms the point that racism is embedded in the law.”

—Victor Ray (sociologist)

Sources:

“A Lesson on Critical Race Theory,” ABA Journal, vol. 46, no.2, Janel George, January 11, 2021

https://www.americanbar.org/groups/crsj/publications/human_rights_magazine_home/civil-rights-reimagining-policing/a-lesson-on-critical-race-theory/

“Behind the absurd attacks on ‘Critical Race Theory’,” Berkeley Blog: Politics and Law, Stephen Menendian, July 14, 2021 https://blogs.berkeley.edu/2021/07/14/behind-the-absurd-attacks-on-critical-race-theory/

Critical Race Theory, Wikipedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_race_theory

Critical Race Theory, frequently asked questions, NAACP LDF

https://www.naacpldf.org/critical-race-theory-faq/

“Why are states banning critical race theory?” Brookings, Rashawn Ray and Alexandra Gibbons, November 2021 https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2021/07/02/why-are-states-banning-critical-race-theory/

Jeanette E. Sherbondy is a retired anthropology professor from Washington College and has lived here since 1986. In retirement she has been active with the Kent County Historical Society and Sumner Hall, one of the organizers of Legacy Day, and helped get highway /historical markers recognizing Henry Highland Garnet. She published an article on her ethnohistorical research of the free Black village, Morgnec.

< Older Post

Newer Post >

Mail

Common Sense for the Eastern Shore

Megan Outten Launches Campaign for Wicomico County Council, District 7

By Friends of Megan Outten • July 29, 2025

Megan Outten, a lifelong Wicomico County resident and former Salisbury City Councilwoman, officially announced her candidacy recently for Wicomico County Council, District 7. At 33, Outten brings the energy of a new generation combined with a proven record of public service and results-driven leadership. “I’m running because Wicomico deserves better,” Outten said. “Too often, our communities are expected to do more with less. We’re facing underfunded schools, limited economic opportunities, and years of neglected infrastructure. I believe Wicomico deserves leadership that listens, plans ahead, and delivers real, measurable results.” A Record of Action and A Vision for the Future On Salisbury’s City Council, Outten earned a reputation for her proactive, hands-on approach — working directly with residents to close infrastructure gaps, support first responders, and ensure everyday voices were heard. Now she’s bringing that same focus to the County Council, with priorities centered on affordability, public safety, and stronger, more resilient communities. Key Priorities for District 7: Fully fund public schools so every child has the opportunity to succeed. Fix aging infrastructure and county services through proactive investment. Keep Wicomico affordable with smarter planning and pathways to homeownership. Support first responders and safer neighborhoods through better tools, training, and prevention. Expand resources for seniors, youth, and underserved communities. Outten’s platform is rooted in real data and shaped by direct community engagement. With Wicomico now the fastest-growing school system on Maryland’s Eastern Shore — and 85% of students relying on extra resources — she points to the county’s lagging investment as a key area for action. “Strong schools lead to strong jobs, thriving industries, and healthier communities,” Outten said. “Our schools and infrastructure are at a tipping point. We need leadership that stops reacting after things break — and starts investing before they do.” A Commitment to Home and Service Born and raised in Wicomico, Megan Outten sees this campaign as a continuation of her lifelong service to her community. Her vision reflects what she’s hearing from neighbors across the county: a demand for fairness, opportunity, and accountability in local government. “Wicomico is my home; it’s where I grew up, built my life, and where I want to raise my family,” Outten said. “Our county is full of potential. We just need leaders who will listen, work hard, and get things done. That’s what I’ve always done, and that’s exactly what I’ll continue to do on the County Council.” Outten will be meeting with residents across District 7 in the months ahead and unveiling more details of her platform. For more information or to get involved, contact info@meganoutten.com

“Turtles All The Way Down”

By John Christie • July 29, 2025

Way back in 1935, the Supreme Court determined that independent agencies like the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) and the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) do not violate the Constitution’s separation of powers. Humphrey’s Executor v. United States (1935). Congress provided that the CPSC, like the NLRB and MSPB, would operate as an independent agency — a multi-member, bipartisan commission whose members serve staggered terms and could be removed only “for neglect of duty or malfeasance in office but for no other cause.” Rejecting a claim that the removal restriction interferes with the “executive power,” the Humphrey’s Court held that Congress has the authority to “forbid their [members’] removal except for cause” when creating such “quasi-legislative or quasi-judicial” bodies. As a result, these agencies have operated as independent agencies for many decades under many different presidencies. Shortly after assuming office in his second term, Donald Trump began to fire, without cause, the Democratic members of several of these agencies. The lower courts determined to reinstate the discharged members pending the ultimate outcome of the litigation, relying on Humphrey’s , resulting in yet another emergency appeal to the Supreme Court by the administration. In the first such case, a majority of the Court allowed President Trump to discharge the Democratic members of the NLRB and the MSPB while the litigation over the legality of the discharges continued. Trump v. Wilcox (May 22, 2025). The majority claimed that they do not now decide whether Humphrey’s should be overruled because “that question is better left for resolution after full briefing and argument.” However, hinting that these agency members have “considerable” executive power and suggesting that “the Government” faces greater “risk of harm” from an order allowing a removed officer to continue exercising the executive power than a wrongfully removed officer faces from being unable to perform her statutory duty,” the majority gave the President the green light to proceed. Justice Kagan, joined by Justices Sotomayor and Jackson, dissented, asserting that Humphrey’s remains good law until overturned and forecloses both the President’s firings and the Court’s decision to award emergency relief.” Our emergency docket, while fit for some things, should not be used to “overrule or revise existing law.” Moreover, the dissenters contend that the majority’s effort to explain their decision “hardly rises to the occasion.” Maybe by saying that the Commissioners exercise “considerable” executive power, the majority is suggesting that Humphrey’s is no longer good law but if that is what the majority means, then it has foretold a “massive change” in the law and done so on the emergency docket, “with little time, scant briefing, and no argument.” And, the “greater risk of harm” in fact is that Congress provided for these discharged members to serve their full terms, protected from a President’s desire to substitute his political allies. More recently, in the latest shadow docket ruling in the administration’s favor, the same majority of the Court again permitted President Trump to fire, without cause, the Democratic members of another independent agency, this time the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC). Trump v. Boyle (July 23, 2025). The same three justices dissented, once more objecting to the use of the Court’s emergency docket to destroy the independence of an independent agency as established by Congress. The CPSC, like the NLRB and MSPB, was designed to operate as “a classic independent agency.” In Congress’s view, that structure would better enable the CPSC to achieve its mission — ensuring the safety of consumer products, from toys to appliances — than would a single-party agency under the full control of a single President. “By allowing the President to remove Commissioners for no reason other than their party affiliation, the majority has negated Congress’s choice of agency bipartisanship and independence.” The dissenters also assert that the majority’s sole professed basis for the more recent order in Boyle was its prior order in Wilcox . But in their opinion, Wilcox itself was minimally explained. So, the dissenters claim, the majority rejects the design of Congress for a whole class of agencies by “layering nothing on nothing.” “Next time, though, the majority will have two (if still under-reasoned) orders to cite. Truly, this is ‘turtles all the way down.’” Rapanos v. United States (2006). * ***** *In Rapanos , in a footnote to his plurality opinion, former Supreme Court Justice Scalia explained that this allusion is to a classic story told in different forms and attributed to various authors. His favorite version: An Eastern guru affirms that the earth is supported on the back of a tiger. When asked what supports the tiger, he says it stands upon an elephant; and when asked what supports the elephant, he says it is a giant turtle. When asked, finally, what supports the giant turtle, he is briefly taken aback, but quickly replies "Ah, after that it is turtles all the way down." John Christie was for many years a senior partner in a large Washington, D.C. law firm. He specialized in anti-trust litigation and developed a keen interest in the U.S. Supreme Court about which he lectures and writes.

“Andy Harris Just Made the Most Dangerous Vote of His Career”

By Shore Progress, Progessive Maryland, Progressive Harford Co • July 15, 2025

Marylanders will not forget this vote.

How Many Will Be Kicked Off Medicaid in MD-01 Because of Andy Harris?

By Jan Plotczyk • July 9, 2025

More than 30,000 of our neighbors in Maryland’s first congressional district will lose their health insurance through the Affordable Care Act and Medicaid because of provisions in the GOP’s heartless tax cut and spending bill passed last week.

Six Reasons Why the House Budget Bill Will Hurt Rural America

By Michael Chameides, Barn Raiser • May 21, 2025

Right now, Congress is working on a fast-track bill that would make historic cuts to basic needs programs in order to finance another round of tax breaks for the wealthy and big corporations.

Who Will SNAP Cuts Affect in Maryland? On the Eastern Shore?

By Catlin Nchako, Center on Budget and Policy Priorities • May 21, 2025

The House Agriculture Committee recently voted, along party lines, to advance legislation that would cut as much as $300 million from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. SNAP is the nation’s most important anti-hunger program, helping more than 41 million people in the U.S. pay for food. With potential cuts this large, it helps to know who benefits from this program in Maryland, and who would lose this assistance. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities compiled data on SNAP beneficiaries by congressional district, cited below, and produced the Maryland state datasheet , shown below. In Maryland, in 2023-24, 1 in 9 people lived in a household with SNAP benefits. In Maryland’s First Congressional District, in 2023-24: Almost 34,000 households used SNAP benefits. Of those households, 43% had at least one senior (over age 60). 29% of SNAP recipients were people of color. 15% were Black, non-Hispanic, higher than 11.8% nationally. 6% were Hispanic (19.4% nationally). There were 24,700 total veterans (ages 18-64). Of those, 2,200 lived in households that used SNAP benefits (9%). The CBPP SNAP datasheet for Maryland is below. See data from all the states and download factsheets here.