discussion of an introduction to critical race theory

Critical Race Theory: An Introduction
Richard Delgado & Jean Stefancic


Per the title, Delgado and Stefancic's goal is to provide an introduction to critical race theory (CRT) for non-legal scholars. They begin by providing an overview of four themes in critical race theory, then address those themes in more detail in later chapters, as they discuss the key issues and debates within CRT, including a brief description of critiques of CRT, as well as responses to those critiques. While Delgado and Stefancic provide a good introduction to the crucial concepts of CRT, the book's exploration of debates within and critiques of CRT feels somewhat shallow, although perhaps necessarily so, considering that an "introduction" to any given topic is rarely extremely lengthy.

Overall, the authors seem to put more emphasis on delivering a historical outline of and description of CRT than on engaging with theory in depth. Their goal may have been to ensure that the material remained accessible to readers from a variety of backgrounds and at a variety of levels, and while the book meets that goal in one sense—very little, if any, of the explanation and vocabulary provided would be difficult to comprehend in a literal sense—the presentation is perhaps a little too facile, implying at points that the questions we might ask about CRT or how racism is constructed are easily answered.

The authors seem to have a basic assumption about who and what their target audience is; at one point, they note that "most readers of this book will know" that "the number of young black men in prison or jail is larger than the number attending college" (113). This suggests that to some extent, the authors' intent is to preach to the choir; we're all singing the same song already, so they're going to teach us where the words came from. I question this assumption of solidarity, however, particularly given that in many ways, the book seems geared toward those who are just beginning to consider the implications of race and racism. Someone beginning this book without a clear conception of the impact of structural inequality might well be alienated very early on.

Supporting the idea that this is intended as a tool to be used during the course of teaching an introductory course on racism, a set of discussion points follows each chapter, asking questions such as whether critical race theory is pessimistic because it "holds that racism is ordinary, normal, and embedded in society…Or is it optimistic because it believes that race is a social construction?" (13). One of the later sets of questions has a series of questions regarding affirmative action and racial profiling situations, with each question ending in, "Is that fair?", such as, "If corporations and government agencies locate 50 percent of the bio-hazards in minority communities, and 10 percent in white ones, is that fair?" (123). Many of the questions presume a binary. Things are fair or they aren't; CRT is pessimistic or optimistic; explanations are logical (and thus, presumably correct) or illogical (and thus, presumably wrong).

Similarly, when they discuss the two main paths in critical race scholarship, the authors divide these paths into "the 'real world' school" and "discourse analysts"—a distinction that may not be theirs originally, but their decision to embrace it nonetheless carries significant weight (120). The authors refer to conservative political groups co-opting the language of colorblindness used by Martin Luther King, Jr., and yet those same groups often argue that the problem with academics is that they are not engaged in the "real world," or that people who are in favor of affirmative action do not understand how it plays out in the "real world." Labeling one school of thought "real world" immediately implies that the other is fundamentally insignificant, as it has to do with not-real things. Although the authors go on to point out that the two schools overlap to some extent and provide a brief defense of the discourse analysts' stance, the two realms are presented as inherently different from each other.

These binaries are especially surprising in a book arguing that "objective truth…does not exist, at least in social science and politics. In these realms, truth is a social construct created to suit the purposes of the dominant group" (92), addressing the danger of a binary paradigm with regard to race, and promoting the value of examining situations on a contextual, case-by-case basis. While Delgado and Stefancic present a great deal of valuable information in a way that is easy to understand, there are points where the form of its presentation seems to contradict some of the premises that underlie critical theory.

The accusation could be made, of course, that my discussion of Critical Race Theory: An Introduction is criticizing the authors for not having written the book I wish they had written. To be honest, I think this would not be an unjust accusation. I rely significantly on discourse analysis, and the characterization of it as unrelated to the "real world" was both off-putting and, I think, simply inaccurate—discourse both reflects and frames our views of the world. If discourse frames blackness as negative, then the "double-consciousness" that W.E.B. DuBois describes in The Souls of Black Folk, the "sense of always looking at one's self through the eyes of others," leads only to negativity (11). DuBois discusses "the all-pervading desire to inculcate disdain for everything black, from Toussaint to the devil" (15). It is discourse that perpetuates this disdain, and this disdain has real-world effects on both people of color and white people.

Consider the Amazon reviews for Critical Race Theory. I do not agree with either of the two extremely negative reviews, and yet, they do both point out what I think is an issue; many discussions of race and racism fall into what Delgado and Stefancic describe as the empathic fallacy: "The idea that a better, fairer script can readily substitute for the older, prejudiced one" (29). Racism is unfair, but what motivation do whites have to change it?

The authors question whether white privilege is something universally enjoyed and equally bestowed upon all whites, particularly in some of the discussion questions regarding affirmative action, but they do not provide a detailed explanation of how intersectionality affects white people, or address in depth how racism supports the hierarchical class system in ways that directly disadvantage all those but the very wealthiest. Thus, it seems likely that those who are leaning toward joining, but not already wholly committed to, the choir would be alienated in ways similar to, though likely not as hostile as, the two reviewers who so disliked this book.

These issues of dichotomous presentation and, at points, lack of depth seem almost certainly to be due to the authors' attempt to create a volume to provide a "just-the-facts-ma'am" view of critical race theory. While brief narratives to illustrate points abound in the text, the book lacks an overall narrative, perhaps out of an attempt to avoid forcing a narrative upon the reader. Without such a narrative, however, the presentation is significantly less compelling. Additionally, I would argue that any compilation of information includes a narrative, whether deliberately chosen or accidental. In this case, the seemingly accidental narrative acts to weaken some of the major points.