Marc Thiessen’s critique of critical race theory (“The danger of critical race theory,” Times-News, Nov. 15) begins with an incorrect reading of Immanuel Kant. Thiessen is correct that critical race theory is a subset of critical theory that began with Kant, but he is incorrect that critical theory was a response to and a rejection of the principles of the Enlightenment and the Age of Reason, principles on which the American Republic was founded. Kant does not reject reason.
In his "Critique of Pure Reason," Kant criticizes the use of “pure” reason as the only means for understanding reality and the world that we live in. Kant argues that in order to get a fuller and more accurate understanding of life and the world order, one must employ empirical experience in addition to reason. For example, we can examine a concept like justice by using our rational thought processes. But we can also know about justice when our mother gives us the same number of cookies even when our brother begs her to give him more undeservedly.
As a subset of critical theory, critical race theory stresses the need to include race as a component of our understanding of law and its practice. Critical race theory is taught in law schools in order to provide law students with a fuller and more accurate way of understanding how race impacts the delivery of justice. In a similar manner Ruth Bader Ginsburg taught courses at Columbia Law School on sex discrimination law to make more evident how sex/gender impacts the delivery of justice.
Not only is critical race theory not dangerous, but as a method of looking at the intersectionality of race, law and history, it provides us with a fuller, deeper, more accurate understanding of where we stand now as a country in terms of racial discrimination and racial disparities; and how we got here. David Miguel Gray is a professor of philosophy at the University of Memphis. I would encourage readers to look at his excellent piece on what critical race theory is and isn’t at theconversation.com/critical-race-theory-what-it-is-and-what-it-isnt-162752.
