The Karmelo Anthony Conviction, Whiteness, and the Tenets of CRT

In 2022, I self-published a book called A Critical Look at CRT in Education, Research and Social Policy. This book was motivated by the experience I had as a social work student at Northeastern State University in Oklahoma. I was told, after being asked to write a position paper on the topic of white privilege, that I was not fit for the field because of my opposing views. This one experience opened up a whole new world, and, in some ways, kickstarted my writing endeavors. I have probably written more on the topic of Critical Race Theory and white privilege than anything. Critical Race Theory is a very misunderstood topic. Most people assume it simply revolves around elementary school lessons focusing on what the left calls, America’s racist history. This isn’t the case. CRT is a research model being used to define what constitutes racism in America decades after the civil rights movement. It is being used to push reforms based on studies they do, that start from the very biased position−despite what other studies show−that racism continues to be a major problem in America. As William Tate says, CRT is not for the undergraduate student, but for PhD’s and law students to analyze law and social policy. The recent conviction of Karmelo Anthony has thrust the topic of race and white privilege back in the forefront of people’s consciousness as once again, racial tensions are boiling over, and people are taking to the streets to vent their frustration.

While this article will evaluate the Anthony conviction through a CRT perspective, some understanding of what CRT is, and what some of the tenets are, is in order. For example, CRT scholars use the term social constructionism to describe race as a construct meant to maintain a social hierarchy. Another major tenet entails a total commitment to social justice. This is where the biased nature of CRT research manifests itself. For instance, a book entitled Research Methods for Social Justice and Equity in Education discusses the idea that all CRT research start from the subjective premise that racism and oppression exist and runs rampant in American society, and CRT researchers are active participants in the fight against it. This is despite another book called Critical Race Theory in Education: All God’s Children got a Song, admitting that most of the idea’s held by CRT researchers are “assumed and not proven.” Another tenet of CRT is called the critique of liberalism. This isn’t a critique of what conservatives know as liberalism, but western society and the idea of individual rights. Under this tenet is something called colorblindness. Many Americans pride themselves on the idea that they don’t see color, but a person’s character. CRT scholars reject this notion as it prevents policy makers from taking racial differences into account when it comes to helping people in need (Delgado & Stephanic, 2017). This is where many of the contradictions start to show as one of the previous tenets, social constructionism, states that race is a social construct. Ordinariness denotes the idea that racism is such a normal part of everyday life that no one even notices. Interest convergence says that all racial progress happens only if it benefits white people first. Finally, intersectionality suggests that people can experience discrimination in more than one aspect of their life. For instance, a black lesbian, experiences discriminmation on sexual and racial terms.

The concept of white privilege has been pushed onto society for several decades now. It denotes the idea that white people have unearned privileges, benefitting from social hegemony in a society explicitly built for them. If minorities are constantly taught, they are victims of a racist, privileged society, what will the likely outcome be? After the Anthony conviction, social activists took to the streets to express a misguided outrage as they justify, in their minds, the killing of Austin Metcalf because he was a privileged white person. From a CRT perspective, the conviction was the result of whiteness being protected by American law. The legal system, social norms and everything else surrounding this trial are, from their perspective, the result of whiteness being presented as the normal standard. Here is where this takes a darker turn. CRT is not used as a means of eliminating racial biases, but as a means of eliminating whiteness altogether. What does the term whiteness mean? According to an article entitled Defining Whiteness: Perspectives on Privilege, whiteness can be defined as any action or practice which works to protect a privileged position in society. Austin Metcalf had the privileged position of asking Anthony to relocate and go sit with his own team. CRT scholars would argue that he felt empowered to do so because as a white person, he is a member of the dominant social class.

The term white privilege is something that the critical race scholars ascribe to all white people as we live in a system that is presented as the default and meant to benefit us alone. Whiteness is the normal course of business in western society, and white people benefit from not having to identify with any racial identity. Except for whiteness that is. Linder has the audacity to argue that because white people exist outside any racial identity, we are afforded a “sense of individuality” that she insists is denied to people of color. How do we deny them this? Because we clump them together into racial categories. This is such an absurd idea because conservatives have been arguing that all people should be viewed as individuals, and content of character, as opposed to skin color, is what defines a person. CRT scholars tell us that race is a socially contrived construct meant to maintain social hierarchies yet continue to insist that we view everything from a racially charged perspective. They don’t allow any real progress to be made as theoretical tenets like colorblindness accuse white people of not taking racial differences into consideration when it comes to solving issues of social equality. Truthfully, taking a colorblind approach is the only way to see people as individuals and not as one race or the other. By denying that perspective, CRT scholars are keeping racial issues alive. If white people did take racial differences into consideration, they would be labeled racist just the same.

Critical Race Theory was developed by hard core Marxists who needed a new hook. The biggest mistake most people make when it comes to CRT is the assumption that it is nothing more than their children’s elementary school teacher calling America a racist country. According to an article entitled Will The Real CRT Please Stand Up? The Dangers of Philosophical Contributions to CRT, white and black people cannot peacefully co-exist, and this is the basic premise that drives real Critical Race scholarship. The author, Thomas Curry, is a radical CRT scholar who has written for, and has the ear of, several policy makers. He says that the lessons being taught in elementary education represent a social movement emulating CRT but driven by the belief that white people can be conditioned to self-reflect on their racist attitudes. He even goes as far to say that the white liberals dominating this discourse are still teaching it within the confines of the white supremacist system. Real CRT, he writes, is a challenge to the very ideals of western civilization itself. There is no interest in resocializing white people but deconstructing the very idea of whiteness through radical political, and legal action. The very legal system which convicted Karmelo Anthony, from a CRT perspective, is built on the presuppositions of white supremacy.

The Anthony conviction, which seems to be common sense, is nothing but another opportunity to push the white privilege narrative. Most people wouldn’t even consider race to be a factor and would accept the same verdict if it was the other way around. It is the liberals who insist on seeing everything through the lens of racial dynamics, which they claim is a social construct, while accusing everyone else of racism for taking the colorblind perspective. They want the legal system to make excuses for Anthony because of what they perceive as racial differences. Remember the tenet of colorblindness? It prevents policy makers from taking racial differences into account when it comes to helping to those in need. Are people of color the only ones in need? The basic premise of CRT then is that race is a social construct, unless you are not taking racial differences into consideration when deciding issues of social equality? Got it.

If you enjoyed this article, be sure to be looking out for my latest book, The Psychology of Persuasion and Propaganda: The Things You Should Know. In the meantime, you can check out –

Without a Shot Indeed: Inducing Compliance to Tyranny Through Conditioning and Persuasion.