If you've been on the internet in the last year or so, you've probably heard of critical race theory, which is at the center of a national culture feud. Now the theory has made its way to Supreme Court nominee Ketanji Brown Jackson's Senate confirmation hearings. Some Republican senators have attempted to depict Jackson as a proponent of critical race theory. But according to multiple professors of law, politics, and diversity experts, it's a shameful attempt to chip away at her credibility and is inextricably linked to her being Black.
CRT is "an academic and legal framework that denotes systemic racism is part of American society," according to the NAACP Legal Defense Fund. Purdue University says that CRT attempts to "understand how victims of systemic racism are affected by cultural perceptions of race and how they are able to represent themselves to counter prejudice." In plain terms, the theory argues America has a problem with race and inequality and that people must recognize that in order to make the country better. (Would it be so bad if Jackson was a proponent of it?)
GOP leaders sometimes brought up other diversity issues: Texas Sen. Ted Cruz asked Jackson if he could change his ethnicity to be Asian, likening it to a person changing genders. But the most drawn-out attacks leveled against Jackson were on critical race theory — despite a lack of evidence that Jackson supports it, and repeated statements from her that she is not a CRT scholar. It appears to be a method to denigrate Jackson since there seem to be no major issues with her background or character.
"Republican leaders have turned critical race theory, about which most of them know nothing, into a demagogic appeal to what is called 'their base.' Their questioning of her was no longer a 'dog whistle' about race, but an open attack on her because she is Black," Mae Kuykendall, a professor of law at Michigan State University, said.
An attack on diversity
Tennessee Sen. Marsha Blackburn asked Jackson, "Is it your personal hidden agenda to incorporate critical race theory into our legal system?" This was one of several times she and Cruz brought up the topic.
"I've never studied critical race theory, and I've never used it," Jackson said at another point in her hearing. "It doesn't come up in the work that I do as a judge."
The line of questioning, experts say, is a diversion in the absence of credible questions about her qualifications, and as many have pointed out on social media, exceeds the level of questioning that other recent nominees have faced.
"The entire performance by Republican Senators was about the culture war and in no way about her qualifications," Kuykendall said.
"CRT is a red herring," Malia Lazu, an MIT management lecturer and diversity consultant, said. "Republicans want to distract their base from the realities of how the world is changing and the real need for us to change with it."
The manner in which the CRT questions and other related ones were asked is also important to note. Jackson, who would be the first Black woman in US history to fill a Supreme Court seat, was constantly interrupted and interrogated. Unlike Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who pounded his fists and yelled during his hearing, Jackson remained poised. Can you imagine being interrupted and repeatedly asked about a theory that you have not studied but that people assume you support because you are Black? Can you imagine being painted as a radical, though the theory, which repeatedly you say you don't support, centers on the notion that racism is very real?
It's also important to compare Jackson's treatment to that of Justice Amy Coney Barrett, a white woman. Yes, Barrett was sharply questioned by Democrats, but she was not treated with the disrespect Jackson was. Kaila Adia Story, the Audre Lorde Endowed chair at the University of Louisville, called the grilling of Jackson "maddening" and "personal and professional attacks disguised as questions."
Jackson's composure in the face of such questioning is emblematic of the experiences many Black women in the workplace endure. Tina Opie, a management professor at Babson College, said Jackson could not show anger, lest she be cast as the "angry Black woman" and therefore judged unfit. The "angry Black woman" stereotype is so pervasive that researchers have studied it and debunked it. Had she pounded her fists or raised her voice, it would have made headlines, media experts said. Journalists might not explicitly say "angry Black woman," but that would be the subtext. An emotional reaction to being repeatedly questioned about an irrelevant topic would have distracted from her impressive background.
What it says about society
Jackson's treatment during her hearing exposes deep fear on part of the GOP, according to Teri McMurtry-Chubb, an author and law professor at University of Illinois Chicago.
"Because law professors of color, most of whom were educated at elite institutions, originated CRT, there is a tendency among conservatives to conflate racial identity and proponents/scholars of the theory," the professor said. "Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson is an Ivy League-educated Black woman, so in the eyes of the GOP she is the embodiment of the threat to American democracy. She is the living, breathing, avatar for CRT."
Tara Jaye Frank, a corporate diversity strategist and author, agreed that fear underpinned the tone of the hearing. "I believe we are in the last days of white supremacy as we have known it," she said. Some leadership experts said the CRT discussion might be an attempt to gain support for upcoming elections. There are murmurs of a Cruz presidential run in 2024, for example. Gaining support from anti-CRT parents during Jackson's hearing is a strategic move.
MIT professor Lazu said the focus on CRT in Jackson's hearing "will work for their base, but not for the GOP's future. Sixty-five percent of young people voted for Joe Biden."
"This very hearing is proof of progress, and their childish response displayed their inability to move forward," she added.