Critical Race Theory: A Cult of Anti-White Resentment

John T. Bennett, American Thinker, March 22, 2012

When asked by CNN’s Soledad O’Brien about the definition of critical race theory (CRT), Emory Law Professor Dorothy Brown offered the following: “Critical race theory seeks to explain judicial decisions by asking the question, What does race have to do with it?” CRT simply “looks at race in America,” professor Brown stated. That’s a bit like saying that a religious zealot just “looks at” theology.

Critical race theorists do not merely look at racial questions. Like zealots, they give answers; they preach a doctrine, seek converts, and condemn nonbelievers. Indeed, CRT is the primary source of Orwellian “hate speech” proposals.

On CNN, O’Brien next asked Professor Brown whether CRT is “all about white supremacy,” as Joel Pollak of asserted previously. Brown replied, “No, it’s nothing about white supremacy.”

Yet Professor Brown should know precisely what role white supremacy plays in CRT. In her own published work on CRT, Brown wrote that CRT “seeks to highlight the ways in which the law is not neutral and objective, but designed to support White supremacy and the subordination of people of color”1. She then cites Emily Houh, who defined CRT thusly:

First, critical race theory seeks to expose the entrenchment of White supremacy and the reality of the continued subordination of people of color in the United States (and throughout the world).2

CRT, as Prof. Brown wrote and cited, certainly does have something to do with white supremacy.

As a law student at Emory University, I was assigned CRT readings in several elective courses—namely, courses in hate speech and feminist legal theory. According to the Derrick Bell Reader, edited by CRT proponent Richard Delgado, CRT’s “founding members” are professors Delgado, Derrick Bell, Kimberle Crenshaw, Mari Matsuda, Charles Lawrence, and Patricia Williams3. Following is just a flavor of the doctrine they transmit to countless students every day. Keep in mind that these are relatively tame assertions, by CRT standards, and are all taken from assigned readings.

The late Derrick Bell, a Harvard and NYU law professor tied to the president, wrote that CRT “goes well beyond civil rights, integration, affirmative action, and other liberal measures”4. What is “beyond” those measures? Specifically, Bell calls for a “commitment to radical emancipation by the law”5. He describes the unifying theme of CRT: “We use a number of different voices, but all recognize that racial subordination maintains and perpetuates the American social order”6. Bell proudly writes that CRT is characterized by “an orientation around race that seeks to attack a legal system which disempowers people of color”7. What does it mean to “disempower people of color”? If an institution does not provide for explicit racial preferences and favoritism, it will be deemed to “disempower people of color.”

Kimberle Crenshaw, a UCLA law professor, provides the much-needed feminist branch of CRT, because focusing on race alone neglects the “multidimensionality of Black women’s experiences”8. Black women are “multiply-burdened” since patriarchy is yet “another source of domination to which Black women are vulnerable”9. Of course, “the social experience of race creates both a primary group identity as well as a shared sense of being under collective assault”10. In response to the awful “collective assault” of living in America, Crenshaw has a policy recommendation at the ready: she calls for “economic or social reorganization that directly empowers and supports” her most favored group: “single Black mothers”11. Not just mothers, not just single mothers, but single black mothers.


To Georgetown law professor Charles Lawrence, there are “structures of subordination” existing in society20. Inferior social standing and inequality of access to resources are deemed the products of racist structure—never the outcome of freely chosen and avoidable decisions, and never the outcome of cultural pathology21. Instead, society is always to blame.

Finally, Columbia law professor Patricia Williams offers a disturbing glimpse into the logic of CRT. Williams recounts the story of a hypothetical question that she was once asked to consider, where X and Y apply for a job with firm Z, which is all white. X and Y are equally qualified. One is black; the other is white. The questions asked: Who should get the job? Williams’ answer is worth repeating at length, as a window into an ideology that is not taken as seriously as it should be:

The black person should get the job. If the modem white man, innocently or not, is the inheritor of another’s due, then it must be returned.

Williams continues:

 . . . [I]f a thief steals so that his children may live in luxury and the law returns his ill gotten gain to its rightful owner, the children cannot complain that they have been deprived of what they did not own. Blacks have earned a place in this society; they have earned a share of its enormous wealth, with physical labor and intellectual sacrifice, as wages and as royalties. Blacks deserve theirinheritance as much as family wealth passed from parent to child over the generations is a “deserved” inheritance. It is deserved as child support and alimony.22

So whites should collectively be treated as the children of thieves, and blacks collectively deserve to have returned to them what was stolen from their black forebears by those white thieves. This is the seething, irrational ideology at the foundation of CRT.\


1Dorothy A. Brown. Fighting Racism in the Twenty-First Century. 61 Wash & Lee L. Rev. 1486.

2Id. at 1486, n.6.

3Delgado, R., & Stefancic, J. (2005). The Derrick Bell Reader. New York: New York: University Press, 83.

4Id. at 78.

5Id. at 79.

6Id. at 80

7Id. at 79.

8Kimberle Crenshaw, “Demarginalizing the Intersection of Race & Sex: Black Feminist Critique of Antidiscrimination Doctrine, Feminist Theory, Antiracist Politics.” U. Chi. Legal F. (1989) 139.

9Id. at 140, 162.

10Id. at 162.

11Id. at 165.

12Richard Delgado, Words That Wound: A Tort Action For Racial Insults, Epithets, and Name-Calling, 17 Harv. C. R.-C. L. L. Rev. 133 (1982), 135.

13Id. at 146.

14Id. at 143.

15Id. at 133.

16Id. at 180.

17Matsuda, Mari J., Public Response to Racist Speech: Considering the Victim’s Story, 87 Michigan Law Review. 2320, 2362 (1989).

18Id. at 2357.

19Id. at 2334.

20Charles R. Lawrence III, Crossburning and the Sound of Silence: Antisubordination Theory and the First Amendment, 37 Vill. L. Rev. 787, 792 (1992).

21Id. at 797.

22Patricia Williams, The Alchemy of Race and Rights 101 (1991).


Topics: , ,

Share This

We welcome comments that add information or perspective, and we encourage polite debate. If you log in with a social media account, your comment should appear immediately. If you prefer to remain anonymous, you may comment as a guest, using a name and an e-mail address of convenience. Your comment will be moderated.
  • Sometimes, things happen in a way you don’t expect.

    I remember after Breitbart died, then they released the video of Obama supporting Prof Bell at Harvard at that rally, I thought the expose was sort of a dud.  That’s because I was analyzing it in light of it doing damage to Obama.  It was (and still is) not exactly a video of him in bed with a girl after he became President. 

    The real beauty, what fell out of the design of the expose, is that it blew the lid open on the crack pot quack pseudo-science of Critical Race Theory.  I have been familiar with it since at least 1998, and I have the same interpretation of it now as I did back then — CRT is basically a social-legal justification of whites (especially white men) becoming second class citizens.  If I were a little bit more Whitaker and Mantra-inclined, I might conclude that CRT serves as the legal justification for the genocide of whites.

  • ageofknowledge

    In my opinion, racists come in all colors and all educational backgrounds. They can even be black females with law degrees (again imo). 

  • Critical Race Theory: Waah, waah, I wish I was White. Since I can’t be White, I’ll try to get what is the next best thing to me, getting stuff from Whites.

  • JohnEngelman

    Critical Race Theory sounds like an excuse to go easy on black criminals.

  • Don’t forget the accent mark at the end of Kimberle in Kimberlé Crenshaw.

    Wouldn’t want to mistake this Affirmative Action African queen for a serious scholar.

  • MekongDelta69

    ‘Critical [sic] Race Theory’ is just another one of a thousand leftist programs which sprouted like weeds in the 60s and 70s to excuse every insane idea to destroy America. Unfortunately, almost nobody on the right had the backbone to stand up to any of this and 48 years later, this is so disgustingly ho-hum, that I don’t even recognize the country in which I grew up.

    CRT has about as much validity as Kwanzaa.

  • I have a CTR its that blacks are highly violent everywhere they are, interpol & the UN agree even Jamaca which has never seen war has a murder rate of 59.5 per 100,k people almost twice detriots. I see that blacks live better on welfare than even in the top 1% of natives in black nations, that sounds like we are doing right by them.

  • libertarian4339

    All this debate over an unintelligent half-baked theory from the mind of a less than intelligent black anti-white hater is truly appalling.

    It’s a little like debating whether Alice in Wonderland is really a true story.

    • MekongDelta69

      It ISN’T?!?!

      You mean I’ve been fooled all these decades.  🙁

      Btw, it’s not a half-baked theory. It was fully cooked, served and consumed by idiots a long time ago.

  • B

    Then all they need to explain is why the quality of life always get worse for for blacks when whites are absent.

    Critical Race Theory = Black Envy

  • Just a load of nonsensical mumbo-jumbo to try and justify black supremacy

  • tickyul

    Simply comes down to MORE excuse making……”See, this is why Tyrone and LAtrina are oh-so dumb and love to slaughter people.”.

  • This crap is taught in law schools throughout the country.  I sincerely hope the white students who managed to make it into law school despite affirmative action aren’t falling for this garbage.
    There is a reason that Lady Justice is wearing a blindfold.  Blacks and their leftist cohorts want to take the blindfold off and selectively apply “justice” based on race.  You see what is happening in Florida with the Trayvon Martin case.  The police are trying to follow the letter of the law and did not arrest Zimmerman based on the evidence they had on hand.  Blacks want Zimmerman arrested, the law be damned.  Hundereds of other cases of black on white murder are ignored, yet this one somehow makes national news for days on end.   I could go on with this screed, but I’m not telling anyone here something they don’t already know.  Bon nuit. 

  • robinbishop34

    You beat me to it. The Genesis of Critical Theory was always careful to never explain what it advocated, only what it was against. In essence it attempts (and succeeds) to politicize logic itself.

     I think this is why you have so many white people that are quick to identify themselves as ‘progressive,’ or ‘anti-racist,’ when they are really nothing more than well indoctrinated foot-soldiers for an ideological orthodoxy that is completely contrary to their very existence. They will eagerly trade dignity and posterity for a temporarily fashionable identity.

  • Bon, From the Land of Babble

    CRT is an off-shoot of Marxism, tweaked for the American market.

    Marx:  All struggles are class struggles.

    CRT:  All struggles are race struggles.

    They will eagerly trade dignity and posterity for a temporarily fashionable identity.

    That is THE definition of useful idiot!!  AND, unbeknownst to them, they will be the first to have a bullet put in the back of their heads when their overlords are through with them; they deserve nothing less.


    • You got it wrong.

      Hitler: All struggles are race struggles (with different angle than “CRT”, of course).

      • Bon, From the Land of Babble

        The history of all previous societies has been the history of class struggles.

        –Karl Marx, The Communist Manifesto, 1848

        Marx viewed the structure of society in relation to its major classes, and the struggle between them as the method of change in this structure.


        Marx’s emphasis on class conflict as constituting the dynamics of social chan

        • I know, I read Marx’s writings in high school and later. Bit, it was Hitler’s (in “Mein Kampf”) thesis that all history’s struggles were race struggles.

          In Hitler’s view, history was dominated by a merciless struggle between
          different “races” for survival, and “races” that possessed large
          amounts of territory were innately stronger than those that did not

  •  O, stop it. White Europeans are still the most powerful race on earth (US, Russia, EU) & will, in all likelihood, stay in next decades.

    East Asians will grow in influence, Blacks will self-destruct & the rest will be taken care of by advanced technology. No suicidal stupidity is irreversible.

    • KenelmDigby

      No, you are wrong again, I’m afraid Bardon.
      The USA won’t even be a majority White nation in 30 short years.
      Russia is, literally, dying and tending towards muslim majority status.
      The EU is a sick joke – and most importantly IS EXPLICITLY ANTI-WHITE AT THE CORE LEVEL -, and besides likely won’t exist (thank goodness) in the medium term.

      • I will just say- Russia is not even close to Muslim majority. This won’t happen ANYTIME & is almost exclusively a product of sensationalist press with the agenda of anti- Russian propaganda that can be traced to Cold-war period.

        The rest is also a fiction, but it would take too long …

        • KenelmDigby

          Bardon, I like your posts and I don’t want to turn this into a slanging match.
           But have you seen a cold, sober analysis of Russian demographic trends recently? – the fact is that slavic Russians etc are dying off at a truly horrendous rates, whilst the muslim portion of Russian society is steadily growing.
           That the USA will be a minority White state by 2040 is unarguable and incontrovertible it is a fact as plain as a pike-staff – deal with it.
           As for the EU, that stinky organisation’s stinky constitution stresses racial equality and ‘anti-discrimination’ very strongly – no European nation will ever be able to expell invaders as long as it stays in the EU.

          I’m not trying to antagonize you Bardon, far from it.
          Only by standing up to reality and facing it as it is unflinchingly, rather than deceiving ourselves with fairy tales, can we deal with it.

  • OK, let’s hear reasonable arguments from prophets of doom & gloom. How are Blacks “taking over” ? Where is their “strength” ?

    Of course that reports on Black on White crime are extremely irritating- a society that loses a sense of security is a vulnerable one. But, let’s hear the stats:

    a) violent crime in Black vs. the same in White community
    b) incarceration rate, Blacks vs. Whites
    c) life span Blacks vs. Whites
    d) capital per capita in both communities
    e) police and military strength, respectively, per capita (not just parasitic life in the Army)
    f) …

    Life is not reducible to examples of:

    * miscegenation – actually, a minor societal trait, as far as Blacks are concerned
    * media manipulation- and don’t forget than in virtually all movies and TV series Blacks are
    street thugs & druggies
    * a few known cases of MSM silence about Black on White crime

    Blacks are demographically the same percent as they have been in past 100 yrs-thanks mainly to the all too generous welfare system & the collapse of even rudiments of Black family.

    How on earth do you think that low IQ parasites without resources & reduced to hysterical crowds can conquer and rule anything ? They are helpless in Brazil (60% Black) and most people here just cannot see beyond the irritating sensationalist newsflash.

    • KenelmDigby

      No Bardon, I disagree with you.
      Blacks run America.Period.
      Everything revolves around them, the whole sorry story of America’s post 1960 decline – that co-incided with the ‘civil rights’ movement is the story of the black rise to the center of attention.
        The drive toward ‘institutionalized equality’ and all the guff , harmful guff, that came from it all took its lead from the black agitation of the 1960s.

      •  How they “run it” ? Economically, militarily, ideologically, culturally,  ..?
        Which history is taught at universities ? Mostly US and European or African ? Who are top 100 US businesspeople, pundits, entertainment people, generals & admirals, super-rich, bankers, intellectuals, politicians, media figures, CEOs, dominant figures in gas and oil companies, military complex, top 100 companies,, “sex symbols”, Nobel prize winners, intelligence agencies people, Forbes top 500 US,…

        Blacks are parasites promoted by SWPL people, not much else. They don’t possess true power in any significant measure.

        • KenelmDigby

          One simple example.
          That grotesque little Punch and Judy show that constitutes ‘American politics’.
           – Basically a two party duopoly.
          On the one hand you have the Democrats – which basically are a party run around a black core, and which does everything in its power to privelege and elevate blacks.
           On the other hand you have the Republicans. A right-wing party. Sometimes pose and pretend to defend White interests for cheap electoral gain, but can be relied upon to stab Whites in the back whenever the opportunity arises.

          Scoff at me all you want, but I’m sure as sure can be in this cynical little analysis.

          • This is your “answer” ?

            I rest my case.

          • Scoff?  Not I.  We have the phrase “Republocrat” for the same reason you have the phrase “Liblabcon.”

    • KenelmDigby

      As the late, great and distinguished Amren contributor Glayde Whitney put it (I’m paraphrasing here) “Every year in the USA there is an enormous transfer of money, wealth, power and women from White Americans to black Americans, since prehistoric times such massive and ongoing transfers have been the sine non qua sine of ‘dominance’ of one race over another. If the annual transfers America sees each and every year is not ‘dominance’, I don’t kbow what is”.

  • Finally, FINALLY, an informed comment. I disagree only with a minor point: AFAIK, Marcuse really believed that Black lumpenproletariat had some “revolutionary potential” (Adorno, Horkheimer etc. didn’t give a hoot about it). It is well described in the 3rd volume of Leszek Kolakowski’s magisterial. “Main Currents of Marxism”.

  • KenelmDigby

    Law professors aren’t real scholars.
    They are professional bullsh*tters.