This is the final part of a three part series meant to reflect on our current political moment and the implications of racialized rhetoric that has flooded political dialogue and shaped the public lexicon around equity, particularly race and racial equity. Last month, we considered the usage of “woke” or “woke ideology” in the context of education, and how its use has evolved and been manipulated to fit a political purpose. Here, we will conclude this series by considering the tension between system and individual, and how Critical Race Theory or “CRT” is being framed in discourse. However, we also center the analysis of “CRT” in looking forward, in a world where racial equity is how we envision it. In the words of Audre Lorde, ‘It is our dreams that point the way to freedom.’ So, what does it look like to not just critique the reality of inequity as it stands today, but to envision, coalesce, and rally around rhetoric, strategies, and programs that we are getting right?

Last month, I posed the question ‘how do we tell the truth, while still feeling okay about ourselves as a nation?’ It considers why “wokeness” has become such a politically divisive word and why it has been increasingly discussed in the context of K-12 education. That sentiment is also true when we think about Critical Race Theory  or “CRT.” There is a pervasive unwillingness to realize, teach, or own the history of this country as it relates to race. Moreover, this unwillingness extends to understanding the reality that this history has shaped the present.

“CRT,” by its formal definition, is an academic and legal framework that acknowledges the role of systemic racism in the United States. You may be familiar with the name Kimberlé Williams Crenshaw, who coined the term “intersectionality” in the U.S. as it relates to the overlapping of social identities that shape distinct experiences of discrimination and privilege. However, she is also widely credited as one of the leaders of “CRT” thought. 

“CRT,”was designed to be understood by scholars, sociologists, and theorists as a verb, rather than a noun.  It is a way of analysis, not a static “teaching,” and centers the interconnectedness of laws and systems from the past to the present as it relates to White supremacy and oppression. 

The tension in the political discourse arises when there is a lack of distinction between individual and system. Of course, racism manifests in different ways. For example, there are individuals who practice bigoted thinking or overt prejudice. This manifestation casts racism as a personal trait and in doing so, frames discussions around racism as individual blame. However, racism has a large systemic component. So, the sentiment that this country is “fundamentally racist”, for instance, by the theory of CRT is not explicitly saying “White people are oppressors.” Rather, the theory is that systems, institutions, and structures have been built on the backs of people of color in ways that always have and continue to benefit White people - regardless of any person’s individual prejudices.

Since September, our discussion of political messaging has centered on the discrepancy between truth and rhetoric. That is, what are “DEI,” “woke,” and now, “CRT” and what are they not? Understanding how narratives have so inconspicuously shaped our perceptions of racial equity, or lack thereof, in this current political moment oftentimes requires naming the distortion, misbranding, or misrepresentation of these terms and what their true values, intentions, and meaning are. Once we compare the two, we understand the dog-whistle effects that have been shaping political discourse. 

However, I was reminded by nINA Director, Jordan Bingham, that when we lead with the opposition frame we give voice to those ideas and make them seem more real or reasonable. ASO Communications, refers to this as “feeding what you are fighting” and instead, they argue we should be “shifting away from cataloging what we’re resisting to painting a desirable portrait of the world we seek.” Maybe we’ve given too much power to the rhetoric that is reinforcing injustice. After all, it is often the political pundits who spew hatred who get the spotlight. 

To conclude this series, I want to highlight a school curriculum that may be understood as “CRT” (or woke or even DEI) in its current political framing, to exemplify what it looks like when we, whether it’s local government, school district, or community, “get it right.” I’m a native Chicagoan and the city has always been very near and dear to my heart. However, it’s not a secret that we have a history that has shaped an inequitable urban landscape when it comes to housing, education, and in particular, policing. 

There is now clear evidence that throughout the 1970’s and 1980’s under then Commander, Jon Burge, residents of Chicago’s Area 2 were subject to physical abuse and psychological coercion to extract false confessions from suspects, which shaped plausibly the darkest chapter of Chicago’s history of policing. There are 120 known torture survivors and many of them served decades in prison, despite their innocence. 

In 2015, the Mayor of Chicago established the “Reparations Ordinance” which “call[ed] on the CPS system to incorporate into its curriculum [this] history lesson” in 8th and 10th grade classes as a part of the city’s commitment to hold the Chicago Police Department accountable for their actions. Most notably, a teacher of 7th, 8th, or 10th grade class can “request a survivor of police torture to come and speak to students through Chicago Torture Justice Center, a support center created under the ordinance.” As a 10th grader, I sat in an auditorium of 500 students as we listened to Darrell Canon, a torture survivor, recount his trauma in the abuse he endured by Jon Burge and during the 24 years he served before being exonerated. Now, I will not share the details that will remain with me forever because it is not my story to tell. However, this lesson reinforced the intersection of systemic injustice and police accountability and allowed CPS students to better understand the connections between then and now. 

As I’m sure you can imagine, this curriculum can be and was heavily politicized. Perceived to demonize the police and encourage anti-police sentiments, or to be propaganda related to race, it is a curriculum that largely falls within the confines of “CRT” with an analysis of institutional policy and racist practice. With School Resource Officers (SROs) presence in schools, police brutality in the media, and negative interactions with law enforcement for BIPOC, this curriculum is increasingly relevant and is rooted in a history that has shaped the current urban landscape as it relates to policing. 

From my own experience as a CPS student, this curriculum centered community resilience and activism more than it commented on the Chicago Police Department. As native Chicagoans, we got to see ourselves represented in the lessons learned to ensure that history does not repeat itself. It helped me imagine what public safety could look like without the police. It helped me understand the distinction between the individual and the system. It helped me consider that accountability and championing justice can coexist. 

So, I’ll ask again: what does it look like to not just critique the reality of inequity as it stands today, but to envision, coalesce, and rally around rhetoric, strategies, and programs that we are getting right?

At the nINA Collective, we believe that it is critical to continue to uplift the truth - no matter how unpleasant - for the purpose of justice and liberation. There is no way to move forward without acknowledging the truth of our past. As we move into a new administration, we call for more opportunities to learn the truth, to engage our history, and to shape a narrative that allows our country to live into our potential as a diverse multiracial democracy. As nINA Director, Jacquie Boggess, often heard her grandmother say - and has in turn shared with us many times -  “the truth is the light.”