Critical Race Theory

Critical race theory (CRT) is a school of social theory that argues for the inseparability of racial repression and many of Western society’s social institutions and ideas. Critical race theorists are highly skeptical of the theory that Western culture, as emerging out of the Enlightenment and continuing to the present, is capable of adequately addressing or eliminating racial inequality. Rather, they see modern institutions and culture as enabling repression. According to Richard Delgado and Jean Stefancic,

CRT scholars tend to see these ideas as being used to rationalize, justify, or downplay racism. In their textbook, Delgado and Stefancic provide examples. “Color blind” hiring practices, for example, may be used to minimize the number of minorities who are hired. Furthermore, contemporary social institutions may require a substantial degree of racial inequality to operate and they systematically confer privileges on one racial group at the expense of others.² For this reason, CRT writers tend to be highly suspicious of markets. In this vein, Delgado and Stefancic note that the way people are racialized reflects “shifting needs, such as the labor market.”³

Rather than focus on the prejudice of individuals, critical race theorists are more focused on the ways that institutions and daily interactions create and reinforce racial distinctions. For example, critical race theorists have argued that schools often suppress discussion of racial discrimination, which leads to the reproduction of racial inequality because people who are unaware of racial inequality are not likely to resist it.⁴ In addition to arguing that social institutions are complicit in racial repression, critical race theorists also advance related claims about racial progress. For example, multiple scholars have argued that White majorities only permit improvements for minorities when doing so is beneficial for the majority.⁵

Many, if not most, critical race theorists see themselves as allied with Left or Progressive politics. Typically, critical race theorists are very suspicious of markets and believe that they propagate racial inequality. Another common argument is that improvements in race relations are anemic or illusory and that a focus on individual rights distracts from an analysis of racial discrimination.⁶

The rest of this entry describes critical race theory as a form of social theory. After defining CRT’s major ideas and arguments, I will review how CRT is used to justify policy initiatives and how it relates to classical liberal and libertarian social theory. The end of this entry presents a list of readings that includes original texts and a handful of selected critiques and responses.

In this section, I provide a broad overview of the basic elements of CRT and present a definition that captures many of the intuitions of CRT. The fundamental motivating idea of CRT is that the social world is characterized by consistent conflict between racial and ethnic groups. Thus, CRT is a type of conflict theory because it is a framework that draws attention to conflict between social groups, rather than collaboration or mutual benefit.⁷

When reading critical race theory texts, it is important to realize that critical race theorists often use terms in ways that are different than are used in everyday speech. For example, critical race theorists will often describe the contemporary United States as a “White supremacist” nation. Traditionally, the term “White supremacy” denotes the view that Whites are morally or genetically superior and that ethnic minorities are to be removed or legally subjugated to Whites.⁸ In contrast, critical race theorists use the term to denote a wider range of ideologies and social institutions. White supremacy in the context of critical race theory denotes any situation where Whites enjoy deference and privilege that may be due to their superior political position and a history of exploiting non-​Whites through slavery, colonization, and apartheid. This distinction is important because critical race theorists are not primarily focused on extremely xenophobic groups such as the Ku Klux Klan or the National Socialist Party. Rather, they want to argue that Whites in modern societies still benefit from privileges related to their color even when institutions claim to be color blind.⁹ F.L. Ansley provides the following definition, cited by Sean Walton:

This definition captures the idea that racism is not a personal flaw or individual dysfunction, or even a historical phase left behind through social progress, but a widespread phenomenon found in all arenas of social life.

The central argument of CRT is that White supremacy, as defined above, is maintained through an interlocking collection of institutions, such as schools or the criminal justice system, that enact social practices and government regulations that have the intended, or unintended, effect of suppressing the relative position and well-​being of racial and ethnic minorities. Many authors would also argue that White supremacy is maintained through custom and personal interactions that aim to keep minorities in an inferior position. Critical race theorists also tend to see White ethnicity as a “property” that is used to garner social status and privilege.¹¹ In conversations, Whites may downplay discussions of racism and insist they “don’t see color” or impugn minorities through “micro-​aggressions.”¹² Critical race theorists often see themselves as providing an alternative narrative, or interpretation, of society that casts light on systems of racial repression and the privileges derived from that system.

Given how critical theorists define White supremacy, it is easy to articulate major hypotheses. For example, critical race theorists often argue that specific laws have the effect of disproportionately penalizing Black and Latino defendants, which then undermines their ability to obtain an education and find jobs.¹³ For example, the legal scholar Ruben J. Garcia has argued that an attempt to systematically repress Latinos motivated Proposition 187 in California, a ballot measure that, in addition to excluding undocumented immigrants from a variety of state-​funded services, mandated law enforcement investigate the immigration status of everyone they arrested whom they suspected might be in violation of immigration laws.¹⁴ That provision made it more harmful for Latinos to be arrested than Whites. Another major hypothesis comes from education research. Numerous critical race scholars argue that attempts to equalize access to schools, such as affirmative action programs, are often undermined by the White majority so that inequality persists anyway.¹⁵ Delgado and Stefancic note that some Whites want to mitigate the ability of affirmative action to bolster non-​White admissions by refashioning race based preferences into class based preferences which would favor Whites.¹⁶ The common theme among these different hypotheses is that the actual enactment of policy has the effect of exacerbating or hiding inequality to the advantage of Whites.

The idea that economic and social institutions are complicit in racial repression has a long history that precedes critical race theory. For example, Karl Marx believed that imperialism and exploitation of native peoples enabled capitalism. Marx argued that colonies were set up by Western nations in order to bolster the profits of capitalist firms.¹⁷ In the early 20th century, the educator Carter Woodson published a book called The Miseducation of the Negro, which argued that Whites systematically excluded Black history from the curriculum.¹⁸

Most observers agree that the modern wave of scholarship that is now called critical race theory starts with the writings of Harvard Law professor Derrick Bell. In a series of highly influential books and articles, Bell promoted critical legal theory and articulated its major arguments.¹⁹ He was the first major scholar to argue that the law itself was to blame for racial inequality. It was not merely a matter of racial prejudice among prosecutors or judges. Rather, the law was more likely to be written in ways that penalize Black defendants more than White defendants. Elizabeth Hinton uses the example of “drug free school zone” laws, which impose a harsher penalty when narcotics are sold in proximity to schools. Because of residential segregation patterns, Hinton argues that Blacks and Latinos are disproportionately convicted under this law because they are more likely to live near schools.²⁰

Bell is also the originator of the “interest-​convergence thesis.” Bell argued that Black progress is only allowed when the interests of Whites align with those of Blacks.²¹ When that does not occur, Black progress is stunted or even impossible. It is for this reason, and others, that many critical race theorists are skeptical of racial progress narratives. Rather than seeing racial progress occurring in a difficult but steady fashion, they see racial progress, if it happens at all, as an illusion. Progress only happens when it is convenient for Whites, who have no interest in reversing the effects of discrimination. There are many ways progress can be undermined or reversed. In a sense, according to CRT, White supremacy is a constant threat.

Even though Bell’s work originated in legal scholarship, the ideas have found purchase in a wide range of fields. For example, sociologists have argued that post-​Civil Rights America has “color blind racism.” People may publicly say that racism is unacceptable, but they act in ways that minimize the ability to identify racial disparities and thus address them.²² As noted above, CRT has many adherents in educational research. It is commonly argued that schools grant advantages to White students by excluding or minimizing non-​White content in the curriculum or defining standards of excellence in ways that privilege White students. For example, education scholars have argued that Black college applicants are penalized for participating in Black themed political groups in high school.²³

It is important to note that CRT is part of a larger family of social theories that view contemporary institutions with great suspicion, such as intersectionality theory, feminist theory, and contemporary Marxist theories. Writers in these different traditions may disagree on the ultimate nature of social problems but they tend to be skeptical of the idea that social institutions, as currently constructed, can address these problems without radical reform or abolition because these same institutions are complicit in the problems they claim to solve.

CRT has motivated many policies found in schools, colleges, and the corporate world. First, CRT has motivated curricular reform. Here, it is important to distinguish between the types of curricular changes advocated by educators allied with CRT and other ways of teaching. The most distinguishing feature of CRT teaching is that American history is best understood as being driven by the attempt to create and perpetuate racial repression and that White privilege is endemic. In contrast, other pedagogical approaches might view racism as a social problem that government policy might ameliorate or that racial conflict is one important feature of American society, but one that has to be understood in a broader context of other social, economic, and political forces.

This approach to school curricula can be observed in the attempt to bring the “1619 Project” into American schools.²⁴ According to the 1619 Project authors in its original publication, the American Republic was created specifically to establish and protect slavery. In contrast, Marxist historians have claimed that the Revolutionary war expressed class conflicts between upstart bourgeoisie colonists and the British crown.²⁵ More traditional historians have insisted that the slavery was not the main motivator for the Revolutionary war, as the colonial uprising contained pro- and anti-​slavery factions and the British would not abolish slavery for decades.²⁶

Another area of policy directly influenced by CRT is antiracism training. The term denotes programs that attempt to directly counter White privilege in workplaces and educational settings. Participants in these seminars are encouraged to reflect on the ways that racial privileges are manifested in daily life, and they are encouraged to think about how their actions may, unintentionally, result in excluding or alienating Blacks and other minorities.²⁷

In general, libertarian and classical liberal writers are often very skeptical of critical race theory, and related ideas such as intersectionality theory, because CRT writers often argue that ideas like property rights and free markets are complicit with White domination.²⁸ Still, it is important to examine this disagreement because CRT writers and classical liberal and libertarian social theorists often agree that racism is a horrendous problem, but disagree on the link between racial domination and economic institutions like markets and property rights. The dispute hinges on the evaluation of markets, individual rights, and limited government. As noted throughout this essay, CRT writers believe that these ideas and institutions are easily subverted in the service of racial repression, or they are used as pretenses to maintain inequality. In contrast, libertarians and classical liberals tend to believe that minorities have been repressed by states and that minorities need to participate in the market economy to improve their social and economic well-​being.

It is helpful to review how major libertarian writers have discussed racial repression so that their analysis may be contrasted with CRT. First, there is a long tradition within libertarianism that has been anti-​racist. Libertarian writers as diverse as Ayn Rand, Murray Rothbard, Walter Williams, W.H. Hutt, Gary Becker, and Philip Magness have written that racism is a dire problem for markets and constitutionally limited government.²⁹ A basic point is that racism is antithetical to the individualist ethos. Ayn Rand wrote a well-​known 1963 essay in Forbes where she claimed racism was illogical and incompatible with capitalism.³⁰ Economists such as Gary Becker have claimed that because racist employers bear extra cost when they engage in racial discrimination, free markets discourage racist behavior.³¹ Walter Williams later argued that Black workers disproportionately bear the brunt of labor market regulations.³² It is also the case that there have been repeated condemnations of colonialism, apartheid, and segregation in the history of libertarian thinking such as Adam Smith’s critique of slavery³³ or Herbert Spencer’s anti-​imperialism.³⁴ Furthermore, these writers have often framed racist and xenophobic policies as market interventions that favor one ethnic group over another. Ludwig von Mises argued against migration restrictions on the ground that it was an intervention designed to favor one group over others.³⁵ Philip Magness’ review of public choice economics shows that “Virginia School” economists tended to see racism as a “constitutional problem” and one factor that leads to the state being captured by special interests who want to persecute racial minorities.³⁶

The source of disagreement with CRT writers lies in the analysis of institutions that classical liberals and libertarians believe to be essential for human flourishing. A very common argument among CRT authors is that capitalism can only function because of the mistreatment of minorities.³⁷ According to this view, racially discriminatory practices allow capitalist firms to generate profits by underpaying laborers. Another common argument is that racial animosity leads to divisions within the working class that suppress revolutionary impulses, an idea originally expressed by W.E.B. DuBois in his analysis of the post-​Reconstruction South.³⁸

In contrast, classical liberals usually believe that minorities are mistreated because they are excluded from markets. In other words, minorities would benefit greatly from access to jobs, owning businesses, and owning wealth generating assets like real estate and securities.³⁹ It is for this reason that many Black libertarian and conservative writers, such as Walter Williams, Thomas Sowell, and George Ayittey, have argued that Blacks need more access to market institutions, not less.⁴⁰ These writers reject the idea that the market economy operates as a zero-​sum game where the wealth created by one person comes at the expense of others. When minorities are freed from burdensome labor market regulations, they thrive.

Cato Unbound, an online journal of academic debate, published a 2020 symposium focused on the issue of whether intersectionality theory, a stream of thought that shares many concerns with CRT because it focuses on overlapping systems of repression such as race and gender inequality, could be part of the larger classical liberal discussion.⁴¹ The discussion revealed the different ways this question could be answered. Political theorist Jacob T. Levy argued in the affirmative; instersectionality theory, and CRT by extension, draws attention to the ways that racial repression manifests in modern society. His response builds on an earlier essay, “Black Liberty Matters,” which calls on libertarians to more carefully pay attention to racial repression.⁴² Phillip Magness, in contrast, argued that classical liberalism already had an anti-​racist tradition and that little is to be gained by incorporating the insights of CRT, as many authors adopt strongly anti-​market views. My own position, also appearing in Cato Unbound, is that intersectionality theory, and CRT, offer some valuable ways to think about racial discrimination but these writers are strongly tied to the idea that markets, voluntary institutions, and individual rights propagate racial hierarchies. Thus, while libertarian writers may benefit from appreciating some ideas in CRT or intersectionality theory, a wholesale adoption of those ideas is incompatible with the philosophy of free markets, limited government, and individual rights.

CRT is part of a larger “critical” tradition with the humanities and social sciences that views institutions such as markets, governments, and schools as arenas for large scale social conflict and exploitation. Classical liberal and libertarian writers usually agree that minorities have been brutally victimized in times of slavery and colonialism, but they argue that free markets and individual rights are tools for improving the position of minorities, not the source of discrimination and repression.

1619 Project. 2019. The New York Times. https://​www​.nytimes​.com/​i​n​t​e​r​a​c​t​i​v​e​/​2​0​1​9​/​0​8​/​1​4​/​m​a​g​a​z​i​n​e​/​1​6​1​9​-​a​m​e​r​i​c​a​-​s​l​a​v​e​r​y​.html

Bell, Derrick. 2008 [1973]. Race, Racism and American Law. Little Brown & Co.; 6th ed.

Bonilla-​Silva, E. 2003. Racism without Racists: Color-​Blind Racism and the Persistence of Racial Inequality in the United States. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.

Collins, Patricia Hill. 2014. Black Feminist Thought: Knowledge, Consciousness, and the Politics of Empowerment, 2^nd edition. Routledge press.

Crenshaw, Kimberly. 1993. “Mapping the Margins: Intersectionality, Identity Politics, and Violence against Women of Color.” 43 Stan. L. Rev. 1241 (1990-1991)

Delgado, Richard, and Jean Stefancic. 2017. Critical Race Theory: An Introduction. 3rd edition. NYU Press.

Levy, Jacob T. 2017. “Black Liberty Matters.” The Niskanen Center. https://​www​.niska​nen​cen​ter​.org/​b​l​a​c​k​-​l​i​b​e​r​t​y​-​m​a​t​ters/

Magness, Phillip. 2020. The 1619 Project: A Critique. American institute for Economic Research.

Rojas, Fabio. 2020. “Intersectionality: Friend or Foe of Classical Liberalism?” Cato Unbound: A Journal of Debate. https://​www​.cato​-unbound​.org/​2​0​2​0​/​0​5​/​2​8​/​f​a​b​i​o​-​r​o​j​a​s​/​i​n​t​e​r​s​e​c​t​i​o​n​a​l​i​t​y​-​f​r​i​e​n​d​-​o​r​-​f​o​e​-​c​l​a​s​s​i​c​a​l​-​l​i​b​e​r​alism

Rojas, Fabio. 2021. “Arguments for and Against Capitalism in the Black Intellectual Tradition.” Heterodox Academy. https://​het​ero​dox​a​cad​e​my​.org/​b​l​o​g​/​a​r​g​u​m​e​n​t​s​-​f​o​r​-​a​n​d​-​a​g​a​i​n​s​t​-​c​a​p​i​t​a​l​i​s​m​-​i​n​-​b​l​a​c​k​-​i​n​t​e​l​l​e​c​t​u​a​l​-​t​r​a​d​i​tion/

Rojas, Fabio. 2022. “Race and Libertarianism.” In The Routledge Companion to Libertarianism, Matt Zwolinski and Benjamin Ferguson. Routledge.