CRT: Mitchell missed the mark

Reading the Friday op-ed piece made me realize that despite Mr. Mitchell having a Ph.D. and having been a local guy, his opinion is naive at best, possibly absurd.

He claims “critical race theory views the world through the lens of race.” What lens is Mitchell using to view CRT? Including Karl Marx and CRT in the same sentence is like comparing a totalitarian form of government to a town hall meeting.

“It might be helpful to lay out some of the basic features and implications of CRT, so we can discuss the matter intelligibly,” stated Mr. Mitchell.

He is correct but fails to heed his own advice.

He states, “Professors teach students, who imbibe ideas often without even realizing exactly what they are swallowing.”

The purpose of college is to learn critical thinking, not how to swallow. CRT was a response to the backlash against Affirmative Action and other anti-discrimination programs which were being called reverse discrimination against white people.

Legal scholars at that point began studying ways to address injustice, not just being color blind. CRT is a way to look at the law, legislation and policies to minimize inequality in our nation and to imagine ways to best address inequality be it race, gender, class, etc.

Legal educators discuss how to learn from the past to improve all our lives. CRT is not a revolution nor is it derived from Marx’s writings. Requesting water from the woman at the well was not an indoctrination program by Jesus. Nor is CRT indoctrination.

PHIL WARD

Coeur d’Alene