Critical Race Theory has been around since the '70s in the academic
world which studies how race and the law intersect. It is founded on the idea that white supremacy is real and the law is written to support that supremacy. CRT is a
way of examining the law and societal structures to identify how they contribute to racial oppression. It differs from Critical
Legal Studies (CLR) by narrowing it down to race and excluding other concerns, such as sexism.
It has become a political point as politicians deny the results of investigations that consistently find that the
legal wording and the subsequent
case law adversely affect people of color. The evidence, which is proven to be statistically relevant, speaks for itself and to deny that evidence clearly shows a disconnect with
reality.
Opponents of CRT complain that it relies too heavily on storytelling and anecdotal evidence instead of strictly reading the laws. What they miss is the fact that
case law is *always* anecdotal and it's still legally binding so
long as the courts use previous cases to set a precedent the courts use today.
"I think we are a long way from the 3/5ths
compromise and slavery being legal, but we have a long way to go and I believe we need people who believe in CRT to root out racism from our legal codes."
"Denier: Show me an exact time where CRT proves a law exists.
Believer: The sentencing for crack
cocaine is 100x longer than powder
cocaine
Denier: They are both illegal, who cares which is longer?
Believer: At the time, powder was predominantly used by whites and
crack was used predominantly by People of Color.
Denier: So?
Believer: They are the exact same drug and the exact same dosage. We treated people with powder addictions and jailed people with
crack addictions. And the only difference was the color of their
skin. That is CRT in play.
Denier: I
don't believe you, it must have been a mistake!
Believer: If it only happened once, it's a mistake. If it happens over and over and always to the benefit of the white citizens, it can't be a mistake. That is why the law must be examined for its words *and* its effects when People of Color are adversely affected by the same laws that do not punish white citizens."
