Topic: Critical Race Theory /CRT
The “…noxious tenets of critical race theory and gender ideology should be excised from curricula in every public school in the country […] it’s poisoning our children.”
Critical race theory isn’t taught in public elementary schools, it’s taught in law school. Moreover, it’s not exactly new, or particularly “scary”, unless you’re a seething racist. CRT emerged in the 1970’s and is literally just the idea that if you’re a person of color, the justice system in the United States has systemic racism built in, and that POC get treated differently by the police, courts, et al. You don’t have to look around very hard to know that this is 100% true. Police brutality, for example, far disproportionately affects people of color. [Source]
Full contextual analysis of the foreword here.
“The NSC should rigorously review all general and flag officer promotions to prioritize the core roles and responsibilities of the military over social engineering and non-defense matters, including climate change, critical race theory, manufactured extremism, and other polarizing policies that weaken our armed forces and discourage our nation’s finest men and women from enlisting to serve in defense of our liberty.”
The term “social engineering” here refers to policies or initiatives aimed at changing societal behaviors or values within the military, such as those related to diversity, inclusion, or addressing systemic racism. “Non-defense matters” likely refers to issues like climate change, which Vought sees as unrelated to the military’s core mission. Vought is arguing that policies related to climate change, CRT, and similar issues are deterring potential recruits from joining the military.
In fact, studies show that MOST Americans would discourage a young person from enlisting in the military17 (unless as an officer), and the Military itself issued a statement counter to Vought’s assertion that politicization of the military is hindering recruitment efforts: “Military recruiting officials on Wednesday dismissed concerns that perceptions of an increasingly politicized military are undermining their pitches to young Americans, saying instead that unfamiliarity with military life poses a bigger barrier to efforts in boosting enlistments.” [Source]
In 2020, Vought ordered the Air Force to stop using training materials that mention race. [Source]19 Vought called diversity and unconscious bias training intended to create inclusive environments “un-American propaganda training sessions.” He is deeply, deeply racist.
Full contextual analysis of Section 1.2: Executive Office of the President of the United States here.
Share this quote from Project 2025:
“Eliminate Marxist indoctrination and divisive critical race theory programs and abolish newly established diversity, equity, and inclusion offices and staff.”
“Rather than continuing to buttress a higher education establishment captured by woke “diversicrats” and a de facto monopoly enforced by the federal accreditation cartel, federal postsecondary education policy should prepare students for jobs in the dynamic economy, nurture institutional diversity, and expose schools to greater market forces.”
There’s a bit of unpacking to do on this one. By “diversicrats”, she’s implying that higher education has been “captured” by administrators who promote diversity, inclusion, and progressive social values (which she refers to as “woke.”) Claiming that the federal accreditation system is a “cartel” suggests that it has a monopoly on what qualifies as quality higher education, which, yes. That’s literally its whole intended purpose. Ensuring quality in an education you’re paying good money for is not a negative thing. Many jobs will not hire you if you didn’t go to an accredited school, because the quality of education you received may not have actually included what you need to know in order to perform that job. Would you see a surgeon who went to a non-accredited school for his training? Is she suggesting that sham universities (like Trump University) should be treated equally with accredited institutions? (Trump University famously bilked people out of their money and taught them nothing useful.)
There’s nothing inherently wrong with bolstering trade schools and focusing on job readiness, but the absolute disdain Burke has for quality standards and modern values is incredibly off-putting.
Full contextual analysis of Section 3.2: Department of Education here.
“Enforcement of civil rights should be based on a proper understanding of those laws, rejecting gender ideology and critical race theory.”
Enforcement of civil rights which completely disregards race and gender discrimination not only does not reflect a “proper understanding of the law”, it’s blatantly discriminatory. She’s arguing here that racial discrimination and gender discrimination are A-okay, because it’s not your right to not be discriminated against because of your race or gender. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, the Equal Pay Act of 1963, and the Fair Housing Act of 1968 would like a word, Ms. Burke. One wonders what she believes a “proper understanding of the law” is, in this case.
Full contextual analysis of Section 3.2: Department of Education here.
“By its very design, critical race theory has an “applied” dimension, as its founders state in their essays that define the theory. Those who subscribe to the theory believe that racism (in this case, treating individuals differently based on race) is appropriate – necessary, even – making the theory more than merely an analytical tool to describe race in public and private life. The theory disrupts America’s Founding ideals of freedom and opportunity. So, when critical race theory is used as part of school activities such as mandatory affinity groups, teacher training programs in which educators are required to confess their privilege, or school assignments in which students must defend the false idea that America is systemically racist, the theory is actively disrupting the values that hold communities together such as equality under the law and colorblindness.”
Words almost fail. She’s arguing that Critical Race theorists posit that racism is “appropriate and necessary.” I can tell she hasn’t read the assignment, or if she has, she is such a virulent racist that it prevents her from being truthful about reality.
Once again, CRT isn’t taught in elementary schools, it’s taught in law schools. She’s conflating actual CRT theory with teacher training programs that touch on insights from CRT in order to promote equality. Its purpose is to to examine how race and racism intersect with laws and institutions. It does NOT advocate for treating individuals differently based on race, nor does it promote racism. Instead, it seeks to highlight how historical and systemic racism have shaped inequalities in society. The claim that CRT “believes racism is necessary and appropriate” is a gross mischaracterization of its purpose, and a lie.
Suggesting that CRT “disrupts America’s Founding ideals of freedom and opportunity” is also a complete distortion. CRT aims to critique how these ideals have historically not been extended to all groups equally, particularly people of color. It’s not about rejecting the ideals themselves, but about examining how these ideals have been imperfectly realized in practice.
The claim that CRT undermines values like “equality under the law” and “colorblindness” is also ridiculous. CRT critiques the notion of colorblindness by arguing that ignoring race often fails to address systemic inequalities. It suggests that being aware of race is necessary to understand and dismantle racial disparities, not to undermine equality, but to work toward genuine equality.
The language of Burke’s statement is designed to provoke fear, using terms like “disrupting” and “actively destroying.” This kind of rhetoric oversimplifies and vilifies a complex, nuanced framework, turning a legitimate academic critique of racism into something nefarious or dangerous. It implies that discussing systemic racism is somehow harmful to societal values, rather than being a way to promote greater justice and inclusion.
In short, racist horseshit.
Full contextual analysis of Section 3.2: Department of Education here.