Editor,
After several rounds of this Critical Race Theory, or CRT, debate in the letters to the editor section, readers may have noticed something — I’m backing up my claims with sources while conservatives depend on saying things that aren’t true.
To recap, Michael Bradley has been agitating against the school system about CRT, as part of a national campaign by Republicans. For Republicans, it’s good if white people believe false or misleading things about CRT, and history in general. Spreading these falsehoods is the goal; there’s no interest in correcting them or having a good-faith debate to arrive at the truth.
I responded at length to Bradley’s main point — that CRT is a simple inversion of racism, in which white people are bad and Black people are good. I said that was nonsense because it’s a basic concept called “intersectionality,” that everyone is dealing with different degrees of privilege and marginalization. I used myself as an example.
Therefore, the basic scare tactic is a lie. I cited Huey Newton and the DeWolf family to give white people reassurances about their guilt feelings. Just because Bradley is paranoid doesn’t mean CRT is out to get him.
Bradley begins his June 29 letter by saying, “In desperation to try to salvage his precious Critical Race Theory, [Michael King] mentioned intersectionality as if that is some academic marvel that everyone should learn about.”
That’s a funny way of saying that I disproved his argument with a counter-example. To be clear, anyone can use Google to find footage or quotes of Kimberlé Crenshaw explaining what she meant when coining the term, to judge if I’m telling the truth or Bradley is. Again, notice that he speaks authoritatively but cites no sources. To me, that already shows a level of privilege and entitlement, an expectation of being taken seriously without earning it. Bradley thinks the school board should make decisions based on his lack of knowledge, or else.
Amazing!
Two conservatives replied to my letters about CRT, and so far both of them were dishonest. Jimmy Sloan said I gave no evidence. Now Bradley is making up a straw man and calling it “intersectionality” because the real definition contradicts everything he’s saying. Isn’t that revealing in itself? Ethics aside, it sets a bad academic example. This is a debate about how we prepare our children for adulthood.
Finally, conservatives quoting MLK to justify their “color blindness” is in bad taste. Does Michael Bradley even realize that he’s quoting a socialist? Is he saying we should teach MLK’s “I have a dream” speech in schools? Won’t that turn the children into America-hating communists?
Is Michael Bradley an enemy of the people? I’m so confused.
For those who don’t realize, MLK was unpopular in his own time, basically for the same reasons that Bradley is against CRT. In his Letter from a Birmingham Jail, he famously said that “white moderates” were the real problem, possibly a bigger obstacle than the Klan. That’s an even harsher condemnation of white people than anything I’ve said in my letters, and that’s the one source Bradley cites approvingly.
The only consistent thing about conservative arguments is the racist intent.
Michael King
Oak Harbor
