Lycoming County might be on the outer edge of many contemporary social issues, but sooner or later, our moment comes. Black Lives Matter parades and assemblies, counter-demonstrations of white supremacists, PRIDE rallies, etc., they all eventually come to our door. We need to be prepared for a new show coming to town. All across America, it is taught in public schools. It is taught in businesses large and small. It is taught in the ranks of the military and in government. It is an accepted doctrine of the leaders in politics, media, commerce, finance, education, law enforcement, literally every fabric of American society. It is called Critical Race Theory, and it has the potential of becoming the defining doctrine on the subject of race in the United States of America.

Ironically, Critical Race Theory (CRT) is not a theory in the true sense of the word. Rather, it is a collection of ideas that asserts the United States has never lived up to the idea of being a color-blind society. According to CRT, despite the amendments to the US Constitution, the Civil Rights Acts, Supreme Court decisions, numerous Affirmative Action initiatives for over fifty years now, it is asserted as fact that people of color and especially black people have faced consistent hindrances in areas such as economic resources, educational and professional opportunities, and harsher treatment from law enforcement and the legal system.

The term Critical Race Theory was coined by legal scholar Kimberle Crenshaw and popularized by law professor Derrick Bell since the 1980s. It is radically different from the aspirational, color-blind language of Martin Luther King Jr., who “dreamed of a day when my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.” Rather, CRT asserts that a “color-blind” society is an inherently racist one because it denies the discrimination and economic inequality that still exists in American society.

What makes CRT so controversial is the imposed “training” that is required to address this systemic problem in our country. Those who are not people of color must recognize their ‘white privilege’ and seek to reorient their lives accordingly. One of many examples of this thinking comes from the 1995 book Critical Race Theory: The Key Writings that Formed the Movement, which has been seen as something of a handbook for CRT advocates. A chapter by Cheryl I. Harris entitled “Whiteness as Property,” states, “becoming white meant gaining access to a whole set of public and private privileges that materially and permanently guaranteed basic subsistence needs and, therefore, survival. Becoming white increased the possibility of controlling critical aspects of one’s life rather than being the object of others’ domination.”

As noted above, CRT is sweeping the nation right now. The latest development was the National Education Association, the largest teacher’s union in America, approving a plan to “publicize” critical race theory in all fifty states and dedicate a “team of staffers” to assist union members looking to “fight back against anti-CRT rhetoric.”

“Fighting back” is a term that is often heard in CRT rhetoric, and this is its major flaw. A true ‘theory’ is proposed, and evidence supporting it or works against it is freely presented. This is how science works. But in the case of Critical Race “Theory,” no opposition is acceptable. There is a large group of what could be called anti-anti-CRT opponents. In a way reminiscent of Orwell’s novel 1984, opposition to CRT is seen as EVIDENCE that a person is racist.

But to flip the argument around, CRT, as presented, is anti-American. One of the central, fundamental freedoms in our constitution is the freedom of speech. The founding fathers recognized that only when ‘free speech’ was permitted could error or falsehoods be exposed, and the truth be heard. And yes, that is messy.

Years ago, shortly after Latvia received its independence from the USSR, I spoke with a member of parliament who was struggling with how far freedom should go. A child of Jehovah’s Witnesses died due to the refusal of a blood transfusion. Should JW’s be banned in Latvia? I told him no because it is the freedom of religion (and all freedoms) that provide the opportunity for all options to be heard and for an individual to make their own life choices.

So, let freedom ring. Yes, let’s discuss Critical Race Theory for its merits and demerits. It deserves a voice like any other voice in our country. But to deny opposition to it is denying the very fabric that it allows it to be heard in the first place.