Understanding Louisiana v. Callias from a CRT Perspective

In my last article I wrote about the latest Supreme Court decision concerning the voting rights act. The left, in typical fashion, is in complete rabble-rousing mode as most people are likely responding to this through what is called the peripheral route to persuasion. This is part of a bigger model known as the Elaboration Likelihood Model. In essence, they are easily wrapped up in the emotional overtones of this case, as they are being told the decision is based on something they already believe to be true. America is racist, and Republicans are trying to keep everyone but the white, heterosexual male, from voting. Aside from the agitating and obvious attempts to get democratic voters to the polls, there are bigger things to look at in this case. If you have been following my website, you know I have done extensive writing on Critical Race Theory. What is the relationship between CRT and the recent court case? Aside from the predictable accusations we hear from the typical people, that is.

Most people still don’t fully understand what CRT is. Conservatives, in particular, have been fighting for the elimination of its use in our children’s schools. This is understandable and desirable, however, despite what people think, CRT itself isn’t taught to children the way people think. Why do I say this? In order to grasp this in its entirety some thorough reading is necessary. A man named William Tate is credited for bringing CRT into education to begin with. Tate is a radical, leftist scholar who has contributed a great deal to the CRT ideology. He says that CRT isn’t for undergraduate students. Rather, it is for PhD’s and law school students to analyze law and social policy. In other words, it is a research model. CRT in education isn’t being used to teach your children how racist America is, though that is happening. According to Tate, it is an administrative tool being used to research our education system to identify racist practices. Here is an important thing to consider. CRT researchers fully acknowledge that all research from a CRT perspective starts from the premise that systemic (not individual) racism in America is a major problem. Furthermore, research suggesting that racism and discriminatory practices are diminishing is flat out rejected by CRT scholars in favor of their approach, which is designed to show racism.

Critical Race Theory itself owes its origins to the Critical Theory of the Frankfurt School, which was founded as Germany’s first Marxist institution. It was originally intended to analyze the plights of the German working class through the lens of Marxist philosophy; however, the founders brought their work to America as the Nazi’s began taking over. In fact, much of what is known as Critical Theory today was finalized in America as the founders viewed American life as not being in line with the values she professes. With that being said, CRT is a method of critiquing Americanism from a race-based perspective. There are five major tenets that make up CRT; ordinariness, color blindness, critique of liberalism, interest convergence, and intersectionality. For the purposes of this write-up the descriptions will be brief, with a bigger focus on the color blindness and critique of liberalism tenets, and how they pertain to the Supreme Court case.

Ordinariness is the idea that racism is such a normal, everyday part of American life that no one pay’s attention to it. Color blindness is the idea that treating people as equals, despite racial differences, diminishes real attempts to eradicate racism. This is because white people hide comfortably behind meaningless reforms that only address racism on a surface level. Critique of liberalism is the critique of western society and the ideas of individual liberty and personal responsibility. Interest convergence suggests that all reforms addressing racial inequality were done because in some way, they benefitted white people first. Finally, intersectionality addresses the intersecting layers of discrimination that some people face. For instance, a black woman, who also happens to be a homosexual. She faces oppression not only as a racial minority, but on a sexual and gender-based basis as well.

As noted earlier, the two major tenets that apply to Louisiana v. Callias are color blindness and critique of liberalism. How so? The authors of a book called Introduction to Critical Race Theory suggest policies that advocate equal treatment across the board should be ditched in favor of policies that prioritize racial preferences because equal treatment diminishes real attempts to bring justice to racist policies. The decision in Louisiana v. Callias was the result of two court cases. The first one, brought before the Louisiana Supreme Court argued that the 2020 congressional map only allowed for one black majority district. This suit was brought by a group of African American voters claiming it was a violation of the voting rights act. The court acknowledged this and as a result, two black majority districts were created. This prioritized race in the redistricting efforts, which was why the second case was brought to the U.S. Supreme Court. The section of the voting rights act at issue prohibits racial preferencing across the board.

Here is where it gets disturbing. CRT scholars want to have their cake and eat it too. They claim that race is a social construct, and that the tenet of color blindness prevents real progress from being made. Conversely, they also argue that a system of racial preferences is needed. For instance, Delgado and Stephanic (2017) argue that “taking a color-blind approach is perverse, because it prevents policy makers from taking racial differences into account when it comes to helping people in need.” There are two key points here. One is the assumption that all minorities constitute people in need, and two; racial differences need to be considered when deciding social policy issues. Think about what they are saying here. They are essentially arguing that minorities need a system of race-based preferences because they are not equal. They say this at the same time they accuse Americans of being racist because we have adopted a color-blind approach to social policy issues. This sentiment can be found all throughout the Critical Race literature. In another book, entitled Research Methods for Social Justice and Equity in Education, the authors are examining something commonly known as the school to prison pipeline through a CRT based research perspective. Take note that they say CRT researchers would “assume that black and brown students are naturally disposed to behavioral issues, and question why the schools fail to acknowledge that as a fact.” Essentially, it is their claim that punishing students for these behavioral disparities is an overt form of racism because they are being educated in a white supremacist system where racial differences are not considered.

The second tenet of CRT that can be applied to this case is the critique of liberalism. The term liberalism in this sense refers to the idea of being a classical liberal. The founding fathers, for example, were considered classically liberal in the sense that they were challenging the authority of the British Empire while advocating for new thoughts pertaining to human freedom and natural rights. CRT rejects the tenets of what we consider freedom and equality as social constructs. To those who believe in freedom, equality means equality of opportunity, not outcome. CRT scholars want guaranteed outcomes based on racial preferences. Delgado and Stephanic (2017) argue that society is racist for favoring the former. Why though? Why would they believe that minorities need preferential treatment unless they believe minorities are not equal? The end result of Louisiana v. Callias declared the two black majority districts to be a violation of the voting rights act−−essentially saying that racial preferences cannot be used. The case was viewed from a very objective, equal treatment across the board perspective. The left is upset because they do not want equal treatment. They want preferential treatment based on race. The only reason they would want that is because they believe minorities are disenfranchised, marginalized, and incapable of succeeding without the help of the Democrat party.

If you enjoyed this article, be sure to be looking out for my latest book, The Psychology of Persuasive 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.