CRT has shifted from a specialized legal framework to a political flashpoint. Its legal framework is essentially an academic toolkit that was developed to analyze how racism is, at its core, “systemic” and “structural.” It asserts that racism is embedded within legal systems, social institutions, and the free enterprise system. The public, however, has been influenced by a rebranding of CRT as a catch-all for identity politics, diversity training, and radical indoctrination.
Its true origins come from the 1980s, when legal scholars like Kimberlé Crenshaw and Derrick Bell among others, analyzed how racism operates systemically. Proponents view CRT as a tool for understanding why public institutions, like schools, produce inequitable outcomes; however, opponents argue that it is essentially race-based Marxism and seeks to overthrow capitalism.
The current state of opposition to CRT began in early September 2020, when a conservative activist named Christopher Rufo appeared on Tucker Carlson Tonight and framed CRT as an existential threat to American education. This, in turn, prompted Donald Trump to sign an Executive Order prohibiting federal training on divisive concepts. Then a commission was formed titled the 1776 Commission and the 1776 Pledge to Save Our Schools. This 1776 movement claimed to prevent schools from politicizing education. This was a strategy used to position opposition to CRT as a defense of traditional conservative Christian values.
There were numerous persuasion tactics used to advance opposition to CRT. One was the “right to be comfortable and blameless,” which is a false equivalency. This policy equated white discomfort with racial oppression. Some anti-CRT tactics framed students’ discomfort when challenging historical truths as a rights violation; this labeled comfort as a right. Vague words were used, such as meritocracy, and CRT was rebranded as reverse racism.
The movement has evolved from the 2021–2022 surge to direct anti-CRT bills and a focus on parents’ rights and anti-DEI laws. These actions, in essence, limited discussions on race and identity, and from there led to widespread self-censorship among professors for fear of losing jobs and funding. In addition, since 2021, 44 states have looked at restrictions, and 18–20 states have enacted outright bans on elements associated with CRT. One consequence of all of this is the denial of credit for the AP African American Studies course in Arkansas.
The deeper crisis is the breakdown in our shared reality, with intensely deep partisan disagreement on the very existence of discrimination. This anti-CRT campaign has ignited a huge pushback against identity-focused education, and now teachers are avoiding complex historical and social topics. The big issue is not whether graduate-level CRT has a place in K–12 education, but whether students and the public can honestly come to terms with American history and current inequities, and whether educators have the professional freedom to teach it.
Tucker Carlson and Christopher Rufo
Six States Lead Nation in Anti-DEI Legislative Push, New Report Finds
Lawmakers introduced 563 anti–Critical Race Theory measures in 2021 and 2022
Christopher Rufo Launched the Critical Race Theory Panic. He Isn’t Done
Echo chambers, rabbit holes, and ideological bias: How YouTube recommends content to real users
Language on the Move: “Cancel Culture,” “Critical Race Theory,” and the Digital Public Sphere
