I read the article “We Taught Critical Race Theory” with care and appreciation. It’s good to know critical race theory (CRT) wasn’t used as a quasi-religious confessional to inspire guilt in any group of students.
Still, while the authors focused on what CRT doesn’t do, I learned almost nothing about what was taught. They report that “critical thinking” was inspired in class, but say nothing about materials or pedagogy used. For example, when they assigned readings from authors associated with CRT, were students encouraged to read opposing views from credible writers who disagreed?
It’s common practice in upper level history classes, for example, to compare and contrast thinkers like Edward Gibbon, Michael Grant and Mary Beard on reasons for the decline and fall of Rome. Considering and synthesizing multiple diverse viewpoints is a true foundation for “critical thinking.” To what degree is that practice followed in CRT courses?
Several months ago I heard a colleague argue that CRT was misnamed because it reflected Truth, not a “theory.” If that view is widespread among CRT adherents, I have to associate myself with those who regard it as an exercise in political theology, not scholarship.
University of Maryland (Honors College faculty and Director of Student Conduct, retired)