This post will provide a summary of the the article “Toward a Critical Race Theory of Education” written by Gloria Ladson-Billings and William F. Tate IV. This paper is significant in that it proposes the idea of considering critical race theory as a key component of education.

The authors assume that anybody who reads this article is already aware of what critical race theory is. In short, critical race theory suggests that the world should be seen through a lens of power as it pertains to race. What this means is that those who have power use race to hold down and oppress those who are of a different race. This is most commonly used in the context of whites vs. blacks in the US.

In terms of the actual article itself, the authors clearly share the following propositions as the main ideas they will address in the paper.

1. Race continues to be significant in the US
2.  US society is based on property rights rather than human rights
3.  The intersection of race and property creates an analytical tool for understanding inequity

Proposition One

The first proposition is almost an axiom of someone who supports the Critical Race Theory view (CRT). Race will always be a major issue in the US because CRT believes that essentially everything begins and ends with a race dynamic. Almost all actions of injustice for blacks and justice for whites are connected with the dynamic of power differences based on race.

What is unique to the first proposition in comparison to the others is that they include several meta-propositions as listed below.

• Race is un-theorized
•  Class and gender cannot explain all the differences in school experience and performance

What the authors mean by race being un-theorized is that much of the ideas of Marxism, which laid the foundation for CRT, were developed by White Marxists who were focused on class rather than race and that they oversimplified race. Therefore, theorizing race involves adding nuance to Marxist thought in relation to CRT. For the authors, race is the main construct to consider when explaining inequity. To simplify, theorizing race means explaining the role of race in education in relation to experiences and performance of minority students primarily black students.

The second meta-proposition of the authors is that class and gender cannot explain all the differences in the academic performance of students. The authors support this point with studies about differences in academic performance and behavior when controlling for class and gender. Race must be a part of the explanation in terms of inequity in the educational experiences of students.

Proposition Two

The second proposition the authors share is that the US is based on property rights rather than human rights. The authors support this point with the reality that in the days of the early republic, only land-owning capitalists had full participation in society. They follow this with the point that a government that is focused on property rights is not concerned with the human rights of individuals since not every singe person holds property.

Governments tend to be pragmatic in that the focus on property rights is because property can be taxed. It’s hard to hide land and other large resources so the government protects property in exchange for protection of the property. The rich have generally paid more in taxes because they have more wealth that they develop from their property (or capital if this term is preferred).

The poor are hard to track and often have a smaller obligation in terms of taxes. To tie property rights to education the authors make the next point that places where there is better property have better schools because these schools get more money to spend. For the authors, this is a form of inequity. In other words, the areas of town with more money should share this money with other areas of town that have less. Better property does not imply a better education because all people are equal.

Proposition Three

The third proposition is not stated directly but the thrust of this proposition is a conclusion based on the previous two. Proposition three uses the idea from proposition one about race not being theorized and proposition two about property rights to state that the cause of poverty (lack of property) combined with poor schooling (lack of nice property) among blacks is a form of structural racism. Structural racism is a system within society that fosters racial discrimination.

From here the authors present several interesting ideas. The first is that white privilege is a form of property that is transferable, can be enjoyed, affects reputation, and can be excluded. In terms of transfer it is meant that whiteness can be transferred by having people accept certain norms (acting white). For enjoyment, it is meant that get to enjoy certain advantages in their education (better teachers, etc.). For reputation, things identified as nonwhite are stigmatized. Lastly, for exclusion, resegregation through such things as tracking or gifted programs is also a form of whiteness as property because these programs generally exclude black students according-to the authors.

Multicultural Paradigm

The authors then pivot to a light criticism of multicultural education. Multicultural education is the idea of getting all cultures to mutually respect each other. No culture is superior to any other culture. The authors critique multicultural education for not ensuring justice and becoming part of the existing system. The authors call for a radical critique of the status quo and thus of multicultural education. An incremental approach is never going to work for bringing change. CRT supporters generally disdain the current system and prefer radical change to incremental approaches to solving what they consider are systemic problems.

The authors go on to state that multiculturalism is attempting to please everybody, which is a futile effort. They then state that they are believers in the philosophy of Marcus Garvey. Garvey is famous in part for attempting to move African Americans back to Africa unsuccessfully.

Conclusion

Ladsen-Billlings and Tate provide an excellent introduction to CRT with their emphasis on the theorizing race within the classroom, pointing their views on the focus on property in a capitalist society, and showing how property and race combined can lead to inequality. The authors also state the need for radical change and call on current efforts through multicultural education is be inadequate. Whether this is right or wrong is left to the reader.