The contribution of Kemi Badenoch, the Minister of Equalities to a parliamentary debate discussing Black History Month, has gathered widespread support and some backlash. It is also arguably the first time that the government has taken an explicit stance on Critical Race Theory (a scholarly approach for analysing society through the prism of race) together with the politicisation of the Black Lives Matter movement, and the role that race should play in Education.

Many have been encouraged by Badenoch’s universal humanist approach to a contentious issue. As such, some of the negative reactions to Badenoch’s speeches give an insight into the ideological position of those that strongly oppose the government’s approach or support CRT. With the government, to all intents and purposes, fighting a culture war on this font, we will likely see these sorts of reactions to become more frequent and more entrenched.

1) Impotent abuse 

The first category of reactions may be described as ‘impotent abuse’. Twitter, the most visible (and most toxic) battleground of all culture wars, is the perfect place to observe

reactions of this nature. These reactions do not bother to engage with the specific arguments or assertions presented but instead have attacked Badenoch as a person or as a conservative. Twitter personality Shola Mos-Shogbamimu exemplified this by deploying her favourite tropes of ‘racial gatekeeper’ and ‘black executioner’ to describe Badenoch. Anti-Brexit activist Femi Oluwole presented a less malevolent but equally distorted interpretation of the minister’s statement, accusing her of ‘racist censorship’ and of not believing that ‘inequality exists’.

Call them what you will, be it ‘ad hominems,’ or ‘strawmen’ (or even, more simply, abuse), these reactions are nonetheless impotent insofar as they do not seek to change wider public opinion. Those that espouse them have no interest in doing anything other than gather retweets from fellow travellers, and shock those who viscerally disagree into reacting, thus increasing their own publicity (and perhaps the chance of appearing as a talking head in mainstream media). The only casualty is the quality of public debate. 

2) Defence and denial 

The second category of reactions consists of those that either defend critical race theory, or refuse to countenance any criticism of it. David Lunn, a South Asian studies lecturer at the School of Oriental and African Studies, already incensed by the description of CRT as ‘ideology’, and Black Lives Matter as a ‘political’ movement, decided to reinterpret Badenoch’s reminder that schools should offer ‘a balanced treatment of opposing views’ as a more sinister set of ‘blatant threats against school teachers.’ Kojo Koram, a legal academic at Birkbeck College, characterised CRT as beyond the intellect of ‘dim-witted Tory junior ministers,’ before mis-characterising it (intentionally or not) as simply a way of explaining ‘the difference between legal equality and material inequality.’

CRT is, like all theories, not infallible, and may be criticised from both the left and the right. While Koram has acknowledged some of CRT’s weaknesses, he did not admit that applying the theory must begin with the (fallible) assumptions that racism is omnipresent, the product of white people (and white people alone) and perpetuated via supposedly white concepts such as objectivity and science. Since Both Koram and Lunn apply elements of CRT to their research, to acknowledge the weakness of these foundational premises would be to undermine their own work.

While these reactions are often emotionally driven, one-sided, and expressed via Twitter (with no intent to reach out to opposing voices), we must be more wary of them. They are, after all, made by individuals who are informed, articulate, and in positions of power. Many academic careers have been built on teaching courses and conducting research that re-examines every conceivable topic though the lens of race. Activist academics such as these not only have a personal interest in defending CRT, but are responsible for teaching undergraduate students, conducting and publishing research (that may one day be used to implement policy), and are more likely to make mainstream media appearances (sometimes purporting to be non-partisan ‘experts’). 

3) Cynicism and Scepticism

The third and final category of reactions may be described as ‘cynical’ and ‘sceptical.’ These reactions, which often take a longer form than Twitter’s 280-character diatribes, provided the most effective criticisms of Badenoch’s statements in the debate.

Activist Lee Jasper, writing for Operation Black Vote suggested that the ‘culture wars’ were a way of distracting from the disproportionate impact of COVID-19 on black communities, along with the lasting damage from policies such as the ‘hostile environment’ and the treatment of the Windrush generation. Daniel Trilling in The Guardian observed that CRT has become a scapegoat for an ‘anti-leftist witch-hunt’ in the US, and warned against banning the discussion of certain topics instead of engaging sincerely with them.

This final category is perhaps the most intellectually serious set of reactions. However, as many have been made by those with a particular ideological disposition, and merely preach to the converted. Jasper, like many defenders of CRT, unquestioningly deploys contested terms such as ‘systemic racism,’ using the ‘lived experience’ of minorities in the UK rather than numerical evidence (which demonstrates the contrary). But the central fallacy of the structural racism claim is this: if you are a person of a minority ethnicity and you conclude that society is not structurally racist, then why is your ‘lived experience’ no longer valid? The answer that many supposed anti-racists have, is not to present an argument, but instead to attack such individuals as ‘racial gatekeepers’ and accuse them of ‘internalised racism’.

4) Are we missing the point?

While most people understandably do not have the time to filter through the text of the entire debate on Hansard, there are many interesting and important points raised, from the contribution of early Black and Asian parliamentarians to the legacy of Madam Tinubu, a Nigerian anti-colonialist and slave trader. CRT was barely mentioned in the debate at all, and it is interesting to note the zeal with which critics of the government’s position defended it.

Much of the surrounding commentary has completely failed to recognise and engage with the other contributions to the debate, perhaps because they demonstrated nuance, rather than partisanship. One of the few non-partisan contributions suggested that while CRT has significant weaknesses and is electorally toxic to the political left, there should be no harm in teaching it critically alongside other anti-racist ideas.

Social media posturing by individuals with an obvious agenda, sensationalist headlines, and partisan commentary has long been poisoning the well of public debate. If the reactions to this parliamentary debate show anything, it is that these contributions have little to offer liberalism, progress or anti-racism.

Rahul Karnik