Revealed: Critical Race Theory’s infiltration into UK Universities - Rahul Karnik
In a previous piece, I analysed some of the reactions to Kemi Badenoch’s denouncing of Critical Race Theory (CRT) in the House of Commons, in her capacity as Equalities Minister. Amongst the most vehement reactionaries to this speech were (unsurprisingly) academics, some of whom applied CRT to their research and were openly engaging in activism.
Since then, a letter has been circulating amongst academics at UK universities in defence of CRT. The letter lists the names of BAME “signatories” and other (white) “supporters” and purports to attack Badenoch’s arguments against CRT along with her understanding of the “legacy of race and racism” in Britain. It also asserts that Badenoch’s position is equivalent to the “censorship of speech and thought”.
Before approaching the litany of factual errors and dishonest arguments in the letter, we must first fully appreciate its significance. The letter itself was initially uncovered by right-libertarian blog Guido Fawkes, which dismissed the signatories as “loony leftie lecturers”. This cliched pejorative gives the false impression that CRT is a fringe view restricted to certain universities and vastly underestimates the full extent of the problem.
Other commentators have been similarly complacent. Douglas Murray, for example, scoffed in a tweet that:
“I love the fact that the ‘academics’ outraged by @KemiBadenoch include such luminaries as someone from the second-best university in Lincoln” (referring to Bishop Grosseteste University, a former teacher training college).
Perhaps Murray ought to be less dismissive of the fact that dozens of the signatories and supporters appear to be employed at top-tier universities, including his own alma mater, the University of Oxford.
Such individuals could afford to be blasé if there were still only a dozen or so signatories to the letter. But now, the most troubling aspect is the sheer number of academics - from institutions across the country and disciplines including medicine, law, economics and education – willing to add their name to a letter that distorts Badenoch’s position, and blindly defends a deeply flawed way of looking at the world. Look down the list and you might even find somebody who has lectured you.
Almost a thousand names do not, in any reasonable sense, constitute a “loony left” fringe. So, while it may be tempting to engage in ad hominem attacks against the letter and its signatories, a more powerful exercise is to point out some of the many fallacies and factual errors employed within it.
For example, the letter claims that it is incorrect to describe CRT as an “ideology” because it contains the word “theory”, and “draws on scientific principles, is based on research and evidence, and can be tested, much like the theory of gravity”. This is pure wordplay. Firstly, there are multiple meanings for the word ‘theory.’ Gravity is a scientific theory, a substantiated explanation based on observation and experiment. Other types of theory, such as ‘Critical Theory’ have a different meaning. These are theories in so far as they critique society and the structures within it, with the express purpose of bringing about change.
And even if we are to accept that CRT is grounded in “large-scale, systematic evidence”, with the universal applicability of a scientific theory, this does not make it infallible. Consider the case of Aristotelian physics, a way of thinking about physical matter, grounded in experimentation. As a scientific theory, it was accepted as the norm from the 4th century BCE until the 17th century, when it was superseded by Newtonian physics- succeeded in turn by Quantum physics in the early 20th century.
Furthermore, the letter mischaracterises Badenoch’s position as advocating “the banning of certain ideas or schools of thought”. According to Hansard, universities were never mentioned in relation to breaking the law. Badenoch referred specifically to the concepts of ‘white privilege’ and ‘inherited racial guilt,’ and stated that:
“Any school that teaches those of critical race theory as fact, or that promotes partisan political views such as defunding the police without offering a balanced treatment of opposing views, is breaking the law.”
A cynic might say that the signatories of the letter are trying to portray themselves as victims in an attempt to deflect from their own blatant partisanship. I could go on by talking about the letter’s conflation of racism in individual institutions with society as a whole, or about CRT’s main assertions being almost exclusively drawn from US and not UK data. However, the chief issue with the letter remains the fact that those charged with teaching future generations and producing influential research have either not bothered to familiarise themselves with the extensive criticisms of CRT or have knowingly accepted the mischaracterisations of Badenoch’s position.
It is, of course, possible that some of the signatories were engaging in a sort of ‘virtue signalling,’ by appearing to support their colleagues as part of a noble crusade for academic freedom, and they added their names without reading the body of the letter fully. But this implies that some prestige is to be gained by putting their names to a letter defending CRT. If a similar letter were to have been written by academics in support of Kemi Badenoch’s views, it is almost certain that many would not have signed it for fear of repercussions.
The evidence suggests that the UK universities sector, which already has a leftist political bias problem, has all but accepted the claims of CRT as fact. It began with capitulating to student protests against statues of long-dead colonialists and stained-glass windows. Then came paying students to police microaggressions and commissioning a report with CRT-inspired claims of widespread ‘structural racism’ in British universities. Like ripples across a pond, CRT will continue to make its way out of universities across the rest of society, be it through unconscious bias training workshops or senior managers imposing Orwellian ‘anti-racism action plans’ across institutions entrusted with the nation’s heritage.
The letter represents the tip of the iceberg. This long march through the institutions will continue as long as we keep dismissing the ‘culture wars’ as a distraction and describing advocates of CRT as ‘fringe’. Perhaps, it is instead time to acknowledge and challenge the damage that CRT is doing to academia, to our society and to our future.