Progressives across the country have advocated for the inclusion of critical race theory as part of public education while many conservative critics have cited perceived sinister motives.
Now, a federal judge is speaking out against what he determined to be a form of racial discrimination at odds with federal civil rights laws.
“The difference between color blindness and critical race theory”
According to the Washington Examiner, 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Judge James Ho, who was appointed by former President Donald Trump, issued a brief concurring opinion denouncing the “disparate impact” argument that a policy can be discriminatory regardless of intent.
Far from “prohibiting racial discrimination,” Ho wrote that the theory actually justifies the pursuit of “equal outcomes” by giving preference to certain minority groups rather than “equality of opportunity” for all Americans.
“It’s the difference between color blindness and critical race theory,” he added.
Of course, proponents of critical race theory like Ibram X. Kendi argue that social disparities are inherently discriminatory and can only be solved with “antiracist” forms of preference.
Opponents of critical race theory say it teaches that America is fundamentally defined and defiled by white supremacy.
“The road to hell is paved with good intentions”
The doctrine seems to align with President Joe Biden’s pursuit of an equity agenda, which has already faced court challenges for allegedly discriminating against white farmers and business owners. Defenders of the theory have downplayed concerns by insisting that its critics are misrepresenting the issue.
At the same time, leftists are arguing alternatively that critical race theory is not being taught in public schools and that it is a doctrine worth protecting at all costs.
Arguments for the theory are not enough to convince Ho, who wrote that it is an apparent violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
“It’s said that the road to hell is paved with good intentions,” he wrote. “That’s why we have laws on the books, like Title VI, that simply forbid the ‘sordid business’ of ‘divvying us up by race’ — no matter what our intentions.”
Furthermore, he determined that Congress does not intend to “restrict neutral policies untainted by racial intent that happen to lead to racially disproportionate outcomes.”