Critical Race Theory is, today, at the center of the political disagreements that divide Americans.  Republicans are denouncing it as a pernicious attempt to rewrite history and corrupt the education system by teaching children to hate white America.  Democrats are saying that this accusation is merely a deliberate effort to spread disinformation and arouse the tribal instincts of the Republican base, since Critical Race Theory courses are generally available at the graduate school level and not at the elementary or high school level.  The outcome of the recent race for the governorship of the state of Virginia indicates that the Republicans have been, so far, quite effective at gathering support against Critical Race Theory.  Such support is particularly seen in conservative Christian Churches such as the Southern Baptists who adopted a resolution in June to reject Critical Race Theory.

However, many voters who have publicly expressed their opposition to Critical Race Theory have also confessed that they do not really understand what it is.  In this article, my objective is not only to provide some clarification to the average reader on what Critical Race Theory is, but also to examine the claim by many white conservatives that it is opposed to biblical teaching.

In their book Critical Race Theory: An Introduction, Richard Delgado and Jean Stefancic, two prominent leaders of the movement, define Critical Race Theory as follows:

“The critical race theory (CRT) movement is a collection of activists and scholars engaged in studying and transforming the relationship among race, racism, and power. The movement considers many of the same issues that conventional civil rights and ethnic studies discourses take up but places them in a broader perspective that includes economics, history, setting, group and self-interest, and emotions and the unconscious.”

Critical Race Theory was started, in the 1970’s, by scholars who came to the realization that the civil rights achievements of the 1960’s had stalled and were even being rolled back.  They questioned the incremental approach adopted by liberal reformers, concluding that changes obtained too slowly can easily be made ineffective by the system.  Indeed, legal precedents in favor of civil rights are not even guaranteed to be maintained by the courts.  The process leading to change needed to be accelerated.

At the beginning, they borrowed ideas from existing movements such as Critical Legal Studies and feminism.  For example, from Critical Legal Studies, they borrowed the idea of legal indeterminacy, the understanding that legal cases do not have a single, predictable outcome.  Outcomes are influenced by the manner in which existing legal statutes are interpreted by individuals.  In other words, the legal system is not designed to always lead to the right answer.

From feminism, they learned about the relationship between power and the pattern of social roles generated by the existing system.  At the same time, they remained focused on achieving civil rights results that make a difference in the lives of disenfranchised racial minorities.  Successes associated with that objective explain why the movement now has offshoots, beyond black communities, that support the needs of Latinos, Asians, and others.  In fact, offshoots of the movement are now present in countries other than the United States.

Delgado and Stefancic consider the following basic tenets as commonly accepted by most Critical Race Theory writers:

• Racism is difficult to address because it is ordinary, not aberrational: it is ingrained in the system and is the normal way of doing business. Therefore, the insistence by liberal reformers on pursuing color-blindness and equality – same treatment for all – can only address blatant discrimination, but not the more subtle forms of discrimination built into the system.
• The system was designed to advance the material interests of white elites and the psychological interests of working-class whites. Both groups will naturally resist change unless they see in it some benefit for themselves, a phenomenon called “interest convergence.”

Even though there has been some progress in race relations from the days of lynching mobs, racism still has, today, a considerable effect on the lives of people of color in the United States.  They are treated less favorably when they look for jobs, apply for loans, look for housing.  Their encounters with law enforcement are often problematic, a fact that has been highlighted, in recent history, by the increased availability of video evidence documenting such encounters.  They have far less access to high-level positions in government, universities and corporations, and they are disproportionately represented in the prison system.

It is undeniable that legal, economic, political and social structures in the nation were built by the dominant group for its own benefit.  Laws supporting slavery were only dismantled in time, and even the constitution initially failed to assign full humanity to black people.  The belief that there is, today, a level playing field, is a fiction with undesirable consequences for people of color.  And if the system has inherent obstacles limiting the ability of people of color to thrive, then such obstacles cannot be removed merely by promoting more positive attitudes and feelings toward them.  In a sense, Critical Race Theory endeavors to study the system to identify obstacles and suggest remedies.  But scholars in the field are divided into two main categories: idealists and realists.

The idealists see race as a social construction rather than a biological reality.  They focus on trying to change attitudes, feelings, conscious and unconscious biases, language and images that lead to the stereotyping of certain groups.  That approach has clearly gained acceptance as seen, for example, in the fact that many corporations, today, insist on training their employees on matters of diversity and inclusion in their attempts to improve working conditions for all.

The realists, also called economic determinists, do not deny the importance of changing attitudes that lead to stereotyping.  But they focus on the fact that race manifests itself in the way resources are made available to the various groups in society.  It is well-known, for example, that the Europeans who colonized Africa found it necessary to demonize Africans in order to justify the plundering of economic resources and the accompanying savage treatment of the people being disenfranchised.  They claimed that dark skinned people were necessarily sinners, and they were saving them by bringing Christianity to them.  The demonization of black slaves in America is therefore not surprising considering the economics of slavery.  Similarly, Mexicans were demonized by Texas ranchers and landowners who took over Mexican lands and used Mexican people for hard labor.

It is therefore easy to see why civil rights gains are more likely to occur when they serve the interests of the dominant group, a fact that has been documented by Critical Race Theory scholars.  For example, the major gain achieved after a long period of failure, in 1954, by the NAACP Legal Defense Fund in Brown v. Board of Education has been linked to two things: a need by the government to avoid social unrest after black soldiers returned from two major wars – WWII and Korean War – and the imperative during the Cold War to project, abroad, an image of democracy rather than that of a nation where the lynching of blacks was commonplace.

This illustrates the fact that many of the gains made by Critical Race Theory have been through the legal system.  It also becomes clear that such gains will become possible only if there is a change in the way American history is understood and taught.  The current understanding reflects the desire by the dominant group to project an admirable image of itself, and does not reflect the realities faced by minorities.  The scope of slavery, for example, is underreported, so that slavery appears as a minor occurrence, in an otherwise virtuous history, that has already been corrected.  If racism is to be properly addressed, then there is no doubt that history must be revised.

History is not an exact science.  It is constructed by individuals who make choices on the prioritization of certain facts over others, and the choices reflect their own beliefs and objectives.  History is expected to change as more historical data are brought to light and more historians contribute new perspectives.  It is reasonable to expect that perspectives that disclose the realities that are built into a legacy of racism can be helpful in informing those who honestly seek reform.  In particular, it becomes clear that the liberal assumption of color-blindness cannot address the real obstacles faced by disenfranchised minorities.

In addition to the need to revise history, Critical Race Theory scholars recognize the need to innovate in order to address situations that have not been previously dealt with.  This involves using appropriate tools to study social data, introducing new categories and new language, updating research tools and legal indexers, etc.

Critical Race Theory scholars also use storytelling as a tool to introduce narratives that counter the prevailing narratives constructed from stereotypes associated with people of color.  Storytelling can be useful in an effort, in court cases for example, to humanize minorities by highlighting the very unique experiences of blacks, Latinos, Asians, Muslims, etc.  It can therefore be an effective tool to help bridge the gap between whites and minorities.

It should be evident from the above discussion that CRT scholars focus on research and on the development of tools to analyze and assess the lingering effects of racism in society.  That is why the Southern Baptist Convention, in its 2019 Resolution on Critical Race Theory, defined it as “a set of analytical tools that explain how race has and continues to function in society.”  Analytical tools are useful for the processing of data to provide more clarity so that informed decisions can be made.  In the 2019 Resolution, SBC did not reject CRT, but only warned against potential misuse of its results.  However, its 2021 Resolution on the Sufficiency of Scripture for Race and Racial Reconciliation was a full rejection of CRT as incompatible with Scripture.  One of the reasons for their decision is that they believe the Bible associates the idea of sin with individuals, not groups.  Therefore, they reject the idea of systemic racism.

This reading of the Bible is nothing but a misinterpretation.  In reality, the Bible focuses very much on nations, such as Israel, and communities such as the early Christians.  For example, Israel is constantly asked to comply with divine law, and the threat of consequences associated with non-compliance applies to the whole nation.  This is not an issue that needs to be debated.  The following two examples should be sufficient to make that point:

“The word of the Lord came to me: ‘Son of man, if a country sins against me by being unfaithful and I stretch out my hand against it to cut off its food supply and send famine upon it and kill its people and their animals, even if these three men—Noah, Daniel and Job—were in it, they could save only themselves by their righteousness, declares the Sovereign Lord.’” (Ezekiel 14:13-14)

“Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy.  They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen.  Samaria did not commit half the sins you did. You have done more detestable things than they, and have made your sisters seem righteous by all these things you have done.  Bear your disgrace, for you have furnished some justification for your sisters. Because your sins were more vile than theirs, they appear more righteous than you. So then, be ashamed and bear your disgrace, for you have made your sisters appear righteous.” (Ezekiel 16:49-52)

God expected all of Israel to be a kingdom of priests and a holy nation (Exodus 19:6).  This does not mean individual responsibility does not matter.  But it means nations can develop ungodly attitudes that can be transmitted to other nations – as seen in the above verses – and to individuals.  In particular, children are bound to inherit the negative beliefs of their communities.

SBC’s rejection of CRT is consistent with the recent hardening of Republican attitudes against it.  Correspondingly, books are now being published by conservative Christians who claim that CRT is incompatible with biblical teaching.  In this section, I will examine the claims made by Dr Marylynn L. Dodson in her new book Critical Race Theory Versus God’s Divine Law.

Dodson uses the introduction and Chapters 2 and 3 of her book to link CRT to Marxism.  This is not surprising given that conservative Christians have been conditioned to associate socialism and communism with evil, leaving capitalism as the only economic philosophy consistent with their beliefs.

It is important to point out from the start that the Bible teaches no such thing.  In the Old Testament, the Law of Moses set the rules for life in the Promised Land and made provisions for a magnificent safety net to keep the poor from being permanently trapped in their condition.  The safety net includes not only encouragement to be generous to the poor, but also the cancellation of debts every seven years, and even a year of Jubilee every fifty years, during which those who lost their lands would automatically recover them.

In the New Testament, the first Christian community is described in the book of Acts:

“All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of their possessions was their own, but they shared everything they had.  With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus. And God’s grace was so powerfully at work in them all that there were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned land or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales and put it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to anyone who had need.” (Acts 4:32-35)

This is consistent with Jesus’ teaching that goes as far as asking a rich man to sell all his possessions, give the money to the poor and follow him (Matthew 19:21).  It is no secret that Jesus cared deeply about the poor.  But in addition, built into his suggestion is the belief that Christians cannot serve God and money, and must seek riches in heaven rather than material riches (Matthew 6:19-21,24).  As Jesus observed, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a capitalist to accept such a demand (Matthew 19:24).

Dodson seems to question these ideas, which she dismisses as utopia when she describes the failure of Marxist notions about class warfare:

“As noted above, Marx’s Communist theories were one thing; the realities that resulted from these theories were quite another. The basics of The Communist Manifesto—that economics were solely responsible for all changes and events in history, for all good and ills (not natural disasters, not cultural mores, not leaders, not ideas, etc.)—and that class warfare between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie would result in a ‘from each according to his capacity, to each according to his needs’ utopia had proven false.”

The Marxist goal summarized by the words “from each according to his capacity, to each according to his needs” is certainly closer to Acts 4:32-35 than the pursuit of material gain that drives capitalism.  It is true that communism, in practice, is linked to authoritarianism and violence, but there are examples of nonviolent socialism in Europe.  Furthermore, since American racism is directly linked to slavery, it must be directly blamed on capitalism and its international manifestations called colonialism and imperialism, not on socialism.  In summary, nations can debate the virtues and shortcomings of capitalism and socialism, but there is nothing inherently Christian about choosing capitalism.

Nevertheless, Dodson’s goal is to associate CRT to Marxism by revealing that some of the CRT leaders were postmodernists influenced by Marxist ideas.  She denounces postmodernists for their refusal to accept the fact that words have meaning and capture truths.  They assume, in her view, that words and language are subjective and can be reinterpreted as needed.  They claim that biblical truths, in particular, were created by people in power for manipulative purposes.  Therefore, metanarratives such as the Bible do not capture divine truth, but can be replaced by other narratives.  CRT thinkers, accordingly, propose alternative, non-biblical narratives based on Marxist assumptions as new truths replacing the biblical ones.  In particular, they explain life entirely as a class struggle for economic advantage between an oppressing bourgeoisie and an oppressed working class.  CRT favors the oppressed and is determined to annihilate the oppressors who happen to be white people in the racial debate.

The above claims about postmodernism are an oversimplified and misleading description of the evolution of biblical studies and biblical theology.  Dodson takes for granted that the dogmatic interpretations of the Bible that prevailed before the modern era represent absolute divine truth.  But one only needs to look at the turmoil in Christendom before the 19^th century to see that Western Christianity never got it right in the first place.  Examining this history is out of the scope of this article, but a few questions can be asked: are we to believe that the Southern Baptists, for example, who distorted biblical teaching to support their economic need for slaves, had a monopoly on divine truth?  Isn’t their behavior evidence that supports the idea that economic considerations are an important aspect of racism, as suggested by the realists of CRT?

In reality, serious Old Testament scholars realize that the retreat from the dogmatic conclusions of the premodern era is due to the unsettled nature of the Old Testament text itself, rather than the assumptions made by the postmodernists.  The Old Testament text contains many, not necessarily unified theological voices, and not recognizing that multiplicity will lead to erroneous interpretations.

In her discussion of the meaning of words, she makes her first attempt to show how CRT differs from biblical truth.  She starts with biblical texts such as Genesis 1 which states that God used his word to create the universe, and John 1 which proclaims that Christ is the Word.  She then provides her own short version of the biblical narrative, which emphasizes that everything in the Old Testament self-consistently points to Jesus, and culminates in the Gospel of Christ, the Greatest Story Ever Told.  She concludes:

“Bottom line: What CRT says about reimagining words, ignoring logic and reason, denying truth and what the Bible says about words and meaning and reason and Truth are at odds. One is theory based on shifting sand; the other is Divine Law based on a solid foundation.”

At this point, it is not clear why CRT contradicts her biblical narrative, except for her claim that CRT thinkers are connected to postmodernists, that postmodernists are connected to Marxists and that postmodernists have views about words that are unacceptable to her.  As an example, in her discussion about words, she seems to prefer a biological definition of race.  But even though she does not like CRT’s view of race as a social construct, there is no reason to see that view as an attack against the Bible.  In fact, it should help unify people of different races by deemphasizing their biological differences and emphasizing their humanity.   The goal of CRT, like the goal of the civil rights movement, is to improve living conditions for the disenfranchised.  Isn’t that consistent with biblical teaching? Isn’t that why many whites joined the civil rights movement, and why many whites support CRT?  Even the Southern Baptists, in 2019, considered CRT as a potentially useful tool for racial reconciliation.

In her chapter on identity, Dodson joins Ayn Rand in praising individualism as a preferable alternative to the Marxist inclination to support groups.  She accuses CRT of attempting to suppress individuals in favor of groups.  She then quotes research that identifies the shortcomings of groupthink:

“As noted by CFI Education, Inc., ‘groupthink is a term developed by social psychologist Irving Janis in 1972 to describe suboptimal decisions made by a group due to group social pressure.’ Per Janis, group identity leading to groupthink results in illusions of invulnerability, discounting negative feedback, ignoring moral consequences, stereotyping enemies, applying pressure to any member of the group who expresses any doubt about group views thereby silencing critical thought, and censoring any problematic information. Each of these are obvious characteristics found in the WE that advocates CRT.”

Anybody who has attended a Diversity and Inclusion class knows that the idea of groupthink usually applies to a dominant group, such as white people representing the overwhelming majority of employees in a corporation, who are resistant to the inclusion of minorities.  CRT idealists would actually strive to eliminate groupthink and the stereotypes associated with it, which keep minorities from feeling at home.  Isn’t it bizarre that Dodson inverts the entire concept?  In her scenario, minorities are the group in power, which suppresses individual self-expression.  Do minorities really have that much power?  Are all whites isolated individuals with no power as a group?

In praise of individualism, she quotes Genesis 1:1, saying:

“The Biblical worldview invites the individual mind to explore someone really bigger: God. ‘He created man in his image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them (Gen. 1:27). Believing this verse is essential to Biblical theology. A man (singular) and a woman (singular) were created in the image of the Divine.”

In this statement, she emphasizes that man and woman are individuals, but she says nothing about Genesis 2:24 which is quoted by Jesus as evidence that man and woman were meant to be united in a tight partnership: “That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh.”

She then quotes numerous biblical passages that indicate that God cares about individuals and often endows them with exceptional qualities.  It is still not clear how that is in conflict with CRT.  With three particular examples, she attempts to show how God chooses exceptional individuals.  The individuals are Moses, David and Paul who have all been guilty of murder at some point in their lives, but were used by God for exceptional accomplishments.  However, while emphasizing their individual qualities, she does not seem to realize that they were chosen to lead groups God cared about: the nation of Israel and the early Christians.  Again, what does this have to do with CRT?  CRT can be used to assert the rights of individuals as well as groups.

Dodson’s claim that CRT suppresses individual expression rests on the artificial connection she makes between some CRT scholars and Marxism.  This is seen, for example, when she accuses Black Lives Matters – which, by the way, is not equivalent to CRT – of trying to destroy the nuclear family:

“Black Lives Matters took down their ‘What We Believe’ page but not fast enough. They clearly advocate the destruction of the nuclear family (Brown, 2021)—they simply must as the co-founders are self-declared Marxists.”

Here, she blames the victim.  Only people who are inclined to adopt her views will believe that young blacks who protest against killings of their peers hate the nuclear family and want to destroy it.  But her strongest evidence for her claim is that some BLM leaders are Marxists, and Marxists by definition want to destroy the nuclear family.

Perhaps recognizing, just for a minute, that minorities may have some legitimate grievances, she condemns the urge toward vengeance:

“Clearly, from a Biblical standpoint, there is no need for a group identity driven by the need for ‘evening up’ some sort of score against ‘others.’ God states: ‘Vengeance is Mine, and recompense; Their foot shall slip in due time; For the day of their calamity is at hand, And the things to come hasten upon them’ (Dt. 32:35).”

There is a difference between seeking vengeance and trying to improve the lives of the disenfranchised, which is the goal of CRT.   This goal is pursued through the court system and the use of persuasion to change minds and institutions.  Dodson’s logic implies that the Israelites should have stayed in Egypt as slaves and should not have resisted Pharaoh.  And Martin Luther King, whom she claims to admire, should have kept his mouth shut and waited for divine intervention.

Dodson denounces CRT for its goal of achieving equity rather than equality, for demanding a field of equal players rather than an equal playing field.  As previously discussed, racism creates structural obstacles that cancel the notion of an equal playing field.  This can be illustrated with an example that is part of US history and still has relevance today as seen in the controversy surrounding a highway widening project in the Houston area in Texas.  According to Associated Press,

“Robert Bullard, a professor of urban planning and environmental policy at Texas Southern University in Houston, believes the I-45 proposal continues a long history of infrastructure projects — including the creation of the Interstate Highway System in the 1950s — that have depreciated wealth in minority neighborhoods through the loss of homes and businesses and exacerbated inequality.”

It is difficult to imagine that projects of this kind could be considered in affluent, white neighborhoods.  Therefore, they necessarily perpetuate inequities.  Should the government make an effort to repair the damage done by such policies to some groups?

But it is interesting to see the biblical justification for Dodson’s position.  She justifies the privileges of the elites as follows:

“CRT suggests that ‘what is given’ (after it has been taken!) should be decided by an all-gracious, all-knowing government. In contrast, the Biblical worldview contends that ‘[e]very good and perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of the heavenly lights, who does not change like shifting shadows’ (James 1:17).”

She does not seem to realize that when James talks about good and perfect gifts, he is definitely not talking about wealth because he, like Jesus, does not consider wealth a blessing.  That is clear from verses 10-12 which suggest that the poor are the blessed ones, while the rich “will pass away like wild flowers.”  Therefore, James is necessarily talking about gifts of a spiritual nature such as perseverance and wisdom, as implied by the early verses in the chapter.

Nevertheless, Dodson shows that she’s on the side of the rich when she urges the poor and the oppressed not to violate the Tenth Commandment by being envious and covetous.  She also associates their poverty with laziness and reminds them that “‘If a man will not work, he shall not eat’ (1 Thess 3:10).”

She appropriately mentions Luke 12:48, where Jesus says “To whom much is given, much is required.”   She emphasizes God’s discretion in giving more to some and less to others, and urges all to make good use of what they are given.  However, she fails to appreciate the responsibility associated with the second part of the saying, “much is required.”  She leaves it up to the rich to define what a “cheer giver” is, and does not point out that Jesus does not approve of those whose desire is to accumulate wealth (Luke 16:19-31; 12:13-21).

The biblical notion of equality is defined in Exodus 16, where the Israelites in the wilderness are told to gather as much manna as they need, not too much and not too little.  Paul refers to that event in his definition of equality:

“Our desire is not that others might be relieved while you are hard pressed, but that there might be equality.  At the present time your plenty will supply what they need, so that in turn their plenty will supply what you need. The goal is equality, as it is written: ‘The one who gathered much did not have too much, and the one who gathered little did not have too little.’” (2 Corinthians 8:13-15)

This exhortation is, of course, consistent with the behavior of the early church in Acts 4:32-35.  The notion that exceptional people should be free to gather for themselves inordinate amounts of wealth while others suffer is simply not consistent with New Testament teaching.

In her chapter on power, Dodson discusses at great length the Uncle Tom character in Harriett Beecher Stowe’s 1852 novel.  She describes Uncle Tom as a Christ-like, self-sacrificing character full of humility and concern for others.  She denounces black communities for maligning Uncle Tom simply because they saw him as a traitor who failed to be a reflection of their hatred of whites.  She points to some black politicians and celebrities who, today, are considered traitors by blacks because they dare think for themselves and deny that America is racist.  And somehow, in her mind, the hatred is all driven by CRT, even though she traces the first attack on Uncle Tom to a black preacher in 1919.  In fact, she seems to blame every sign of hate from blacks on CRT.

Dobson’s main point is that those who have suffered from racism should act like Uncle Tom and humbly accept their fate, because that is what real Christians do.  But she never urges whites to act in a similar manner.  The logic seems to be that blacks should be Christ-like and expect their reward in heaven, while whites deserve the privileges they acquired on earth because those privileges came from God.  That is consistent with the fraudulent belief perpetuated by much of Western Christianity that the kingdom of God is only in heaven, even though Jesus, in the Sermon on the Mount, was clearly teaching his disciples how to establish it on earth.

Consider for example one of the Beatitudes: “Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the earth” (Matthew 5:6).  It specifically refers to earthly blessings.  In fact, Christianity, beginning with Jesus himself, was a movement of nonviolent resistance against the unacceptable status quo imposed by the powers of the world, namely Rome.  The idea of the kingdom of God implies replacing earthly kingdoms with one in which citizens are inclined to do God’s will as revealed by Jesus.  The kingdom of God grows on earth because Jesus’ disciples provide a model of behavior that can be imitated by all.  The idea that oppressed people should accept their fate and wait till they get to heaven is not biblical.  Exhortations to promote justice on earth are found throughout the Bible.  Most of the Old Testament is not even preoccupied with the afterlife.  The foundational event for the Israelites, the exodus from Egypt, was meant to lead them to a better earthly life in Canaan.

Dodson’s chapter on hate frankly adds no additional value.  It presents hate and violence as owned entirely by Black Lives Matter and Antifa, and never mentions white supremacy, which has been identified by the FBI as the greatest terrorist danger in the United States today.  Black Lives Matter and Antifa are viewed by Dodson as Marxists who are driven by “hatred of all white individuals who dare to assert that each life matters and hatred of any social system that CRT advocates believe supports such individuals.”  Again, the connection between CRT and hate is an artificial one: hate should be expected because that is what Marxists are about, and any black connected to hate or violence is a Marxist driven by CRT.  Her proposed remedy is Christian love, including love of enemies.  But again, only proponents of CRT should learn that lesson because they are the ones promoting hate.  No change is needed from the other side.

In one of the rare instances where she seems to admit that evil was done to blacks through slavery, that evil is quickly turned against CRT.  The evil is the use of the so-called curse of Cain to justify the slave trade.  She admits that the biblical stories of Cain and Noah’s family were distorted by slave traders to provide a false justification of slavery.  She even mentions the praiseworthy efforts of John Woolman, an abolitionist, to convince his contemporaries that they were misinterpreting the Bible.  She provides an excerpt from Woolman’s 1847 journal, which ironically ends with the following words:

“I was troubled to perceive the darkness of their [the company’s] imaginations; and in some pressure of spirit [I] said, the love of ease and gain are the motives in general of keeping slaves, and men are wont to take hold of weak arguments to support a cause which is unreasonable.”

With these words, Woolman recognized, like the realists of CRT, that material gain was the driver for the villainization of blacks.  Did that make him an evil Marxist?  However, the bottom line to Dodson is that CRT, somehow, is the heir of this kind of distortion of the truth:

“Ironically, CRT advocates using the same types of erroneous manipulations leading to the same false, evil conclusions. The curse has just shifted per skin color. Per CRT, all whites are born cursed—cursed by white guilt.”

The current political divisions between Republicans and Democrats are accentuated by the claim that CRT is being taught to school children to make them believe that America is a racist country.  Dodson addresses the issue by attacking Nikole Hannah-Jones’ 1619 Project.

Dodson introduces the 1619 Project by comparing it to communist efforts in China to shape the minds of children before they reach the age of 7.  She accuses the project of exaggerating the importance of slavery in American history.  She questions the claims made by the project and says:

“The project, originally journalistic in nature, has been converted to becoming the educational curriculum of choice by the CRT believers. A purview of its essays, poetry, and short fiction quickly reveals that it weakly reflects the truth of American history.”

She accuses the project of accomplishing a “negative tour de force” that covers 400 years of American history and fails to mention the contributions of white abolitionists or white people who participated in the civil rights movement.  She mentions some historians who question some of the claims made by the project, etc.  There is no need to address such criticism here since the project itself provides material for its own defense.

However, it is important to note that educational materials that have been developed, based on the 1619 project, and made available to interested educators throughout the country, have been used to supplement rather than to replace standard social studies and history curriculums.  Therefore, the accusation that CRT wants to use the project as a replacement for the entire educational curriculum is unfounded.

Standard material for the teaching of history was developed by historians who wanted to emphasize the exceptional side of America and mostly included information that made that point.  It is not difficult to understand that new research work, and particularly research done by historians with a different point of view, will bring to light perspectives that were not previously accounted for.  It is simply a fact that serious historians have been exposing more and more historical facts that do not fit in the patriotic narrative that was initially part of the teaching standards.  The question is therefore: should serious work done by credible historians be suppressed so that myths that maintain a sense of patriotism are kept in place?  Does truth matter at all in the teaching of history to children?  These are questions that matter to historians and educators, whether or not they endorse CRT.  But Dodson would have us believe, as if we were all uneducated children, that true history has already been written and is unchangeable, and that CRT merely wants to distort it to promote hate of white people.

When she turns to the Bible to defend her position, she quotes verses that warn against “offending” children.  The implication is that CRT offends children with its lies about America and white people.  She then adds:

“One definition of ‘offend’ is to cause a person to begin to distrust someone he ought to trust and obey. In light of the basic contention of the 1619 Project, how can a biracial child ever love and trust a white mother or father? Such is offensive, indeed.”

The implication here is that CRT teaches children to hate all white people and therefore, will teach a biracial child to hate one of his/her parents.  This is the kind of simple-minded argument that will probably be effective if it is made to an audience that is already sold on Dodson’s views, but is meaningless to those who evaluate her claims objectively.  So far, she has not done a real assessment of CRT themes and tools.  Instead, she has either distorted them using Marxism as a bogeyman, or misquoted the Bible to make questionable statements.

Dodson praises the education system inherited from the Puritans who understood the necessity to properly educate their children.  She quotes a 1642 order from the Massachusetts legislature which aims at ensuring that families

“teach, by themselves or others, their children and apprentices as much learning as may enable them perfectly to read the English tongue, and knowledge of the capital laws, upon penalty of 20 shillings for each neglect therein; also, that all masters of families do, once a week, at least, catechize their children and servants in the grounds and principles of religion.”

While the Puritans’ emphasis on education is commendable, it is notable that servants are only allowed to be educated on matters of religion.  In fact, the US is the only known country where the education of slaves was prohibited.  Literacy was often seen as a threat to the institution of slavery.  For example, a statute in North Carolina said:

“Teaching slaves to read and write, tends to excite dissatisfaction in their minds, and to produce insurrection and rebellion.”

Therefore, the good intentions the Puritans may have had on educational matters did not apply to black slaves whose religious instruction would have been designed to ensure their submission to their masters.  But Dobson seems to believe the educational system was an ideal one which was later corrupted after being infiltrated by Marxist postmodern educators and CRT.  And now, it faces the greatest threat to its survival: the 1619 Project.

In her conclusion, Dodson summarizes CRT, which she declares opposed to the Gospel:

“CRTers’ view of the world—that America is systemically racist—allows them to justify censorship of words, to deny individual thought, to demand equity in all walks of life, to pursue any and all means to gain power, to hate those who disagree with their view, and to teach children to see themselves as either victims or oppressors. It preaches a gospel of earthly salvation via black liberation.”

Most of the ideas in this summary are familiar by now.  But black liberation is now condemned as an evil opposed to the pursuit of “spiritual and eternal salvation” associated with the Gospel.  As I previously noted, if liberation is an evil pursuit, then the Israelites should have stayed in Egypt, and Martin Luther King should have stayed away from the civil rights movement.  And I wonder what Dodson thinks about the American Revolution.