IRR’s stance on critical race theory is ideological, biased and misrepresentative
11 August 2021 - 17:15
Support our award-winning journalism. The Premium package (digital only) is R30 for the first month and thereafter you pay R129 p/m now ad-free for all subscribers.
The Institute of Race Relations (IRR) strategically misinforms the SA public about racism in similar fashion to right-wing political pundits and conservative think-tanks in the US.
Its former head of research, Jane Tempest, has noted that the IRR has decidedto “eschew the promotion of good race relations in favour of entering the anti-critical race theory debate, which is heading to be a key campaign platform of far-right racists in the 2022 US elections”. This is no aberration or coincidence in its work. Rather, it is in line with its broader project of misinformation about race and racism.
We need only look at the definitions the IRR gives of critical race theory (CRT) in its recent attacks to see its case is not one concerned with facts or fair representation. Its view is ideological, biased and misrepresentative.
IRR CEO-elect John Endres defines CRT as “a race essentialist theory, increasingly popular in the Western world, that reduces individuals to their race and then divides society along racial lines, just as apartheid did — an abhorrent notion that the IRR opposes for the same consistent reasons”.
What is most strange about this incorrect definition of CRT is how it relies on making a false equivalence between the white supremacist apartheid project and the application of CRT to oppose it. Is the insinuation here that CRT theorists against apartheid fascism are the real fascists today?
Sara Gon, a policy fellow of the IRR who recentlydefended the apartheid state of Israel against disinvestment, says the IRRopposes CRT “because its very premise is entirely based on the shallow assumption that the colour of your skin determines who and what you are”. This comment echoes US representative Jim Banks, who reported that Republicans “reject the racial essentialism that CRT teaches”.
In response, philosopher Miguel Gray explains why these comments are a mischaracterisation. As other commentators have noted, the IRR is importing its rhetoric on race and CRT from US conservative movements and is now a right-wing agitator in SA.
A simple Google search of the term “critical race theory” would dissuade anyone with an interest in knowing what CRT is of these myths. The Wikipedia article on CRT, the very first result in a Google search, states that “while critical race theorists do not all share the same beliefs, the basic tenets of CRT include that racism and disparate racial outcomes are the result of complex, changing and often subtle social and institutional dynamics, rather than explicit and intentional prejudices in individuals”.
In the context of its politics and recent policy recommendations, we must ask why the official stance of the IRR on CRT depends on a false and (purposefully?) mischaracterised version of CRT.
Phila Mfundo Msimang, via email
JOIN THE DISCUSSION: Send us an email with your comments. Letters of more than 300 words will be edited for length. Send your letter by email to letters@businesslive.co.za. Anonymous correspondence will not be published. Writers should include a daytime telephone number.
Support our award-winning journalism. The Premium package (digital only) is R30 for the first month and thereafter you pay R129 p/m now ad-free for all subscribers.
LETTER: True colours
IRR’s stance on critical race theory is ideological, biased and misrepresentative
The Institute of Race Relations (IRR) strategically misinforms the SA public about racism in similar fashion to right-wing political pundits and conservative think-tanks in the US.
Its former head of research, Jane Tempest, has noted that the IRR has decided to “eschew the promotion of good race relations in favour of entering the anti-critical race theory debate, which is heading to be a key campaign platform of far-right racists in the 2022 US elections”. This is no aberration or coincidence in its work. Rather, it is in line with its broader project of misinformation about race and racism.
We need only look at the definitions the IRR gives of critical race theory (CRT) in its recent attacks to see its case is not one concerned with facts or fair representation. Its view is ideological, biased and misrepresentative.
IRR CEO-elect John Endres defines CRT as “a race essentialist theory, increasingly popular in the Western world, that reduces individuals to their race and then divides society along racial lines, just as apartheid did — an abhorrent notion that the IRR opposes for the same consistent reasons”.
What is most strange about this incorrect definition of CRT is how it relies on making a false equivalence between the white supremacist apartheid project and the application of CRT to oppose it. Is the insinuation here that CRT theorists against apartheid fascism are the real fascists today?
Sara Gon, a policy fellow of the IRR who recently defended the apartheid state of Israel against disinvestment, says the IRR opposes CRT “because its very premise is entirely based on the shallow assumption that the colour of your skin determines who and what you are”. This comment echoes US representative Jim Banks, who reported that Republicans “reject the racial essentialism that CRT teaches”.
In response, philosopher Miguel Gray explains why these comments are a mischaracterisation. As other commentators have noted, the IRR is importing its rhetoric on race and CRT from US conservative movements and is now a right-wing agitator in SA.
A simple Google search of the term “critical race theory” would dissuade anyone with an interest in knowing what CRT is of these myths. The Wikipedia article on CRT, the very first result in a Google search, states that “while critical race theorists do not all share the same beliefs, the basic tenets of CRT include that racism and disparate racial outcomes are the result of complex, changing and often subtle social and institutional dynamics, rather than explicit and intentional prejudices in individuals”.
In the context of its politics and recent policy recommendations, we must ask why the official stance of the IRR on CRT depends on a false and (purposefully?) mischaracterised version of CRT.
Phila Mfundo Msimang, via email
JOIN THE DISCUSSION: Send us an email with your comments. Letters of more than 300 words will be edited for length. Send your letter by email to letters@businesslive.co.za. Anonymous correspondence will not be published. Writers should include a daytime telephone number.
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.
Most Read
Published by Arena Holdings and distributed with the Financial Mail on the last Thursday of every month except December and January.