Reparations and Academia
This week I read the introduction and three essays from Kimberlé Crenshaw’s anthology Critical Race Theory. In the introduction, Cornel West defines critical race theory (CRT) as a means of dissecting the relationship between American legal culture and politics. In an attempt to tackle white supremacy, theorists in this academic discipline analyze how the professed ideals in the law are distorted in their real-life application to politics. Additionally, West distinguishes critical race theorists from critical legal theorists by pointing out that those in CRT criticize the civil rights movement for not being radical enough. They claim that the equality people demanded was based primarily on the elimination of overt acts of racism, shifting the focus off of elusive racial oppression perpetuated by the linguistic nuances of the law.
In the readings that I did, there were several references made to how the law can be used to guarantee fair reparations for those representing oppressed minorities. In Mari Matsuda’s essay “Looking to the Bottom: Critical Legal Studies and Reparations,” Matsuda emphasizes the importance of listening to the needs and concerns voiced by discriminated groups. To bring about reform that will most effectively compensate for past prejudice, politicians should not attempt to step into the shoes of those with less privilege, but should instead directly ask the people what they want. The only flaw with this more direct approach is that it reinforces the social hierarchy that was the initial cause of this oppression. The privileged must provide the oppressed with both the permission and the resources to rise in status and rights.
A potential way to get rid of these top to bottom relationships in cases of reparation is to ensure that the oppressed have agency over their own advancement, along with support from those with privilege. With this thought, I think it’s important to call out academia for its blunder. Reflecting on all of the readings I have done thus far for this directed study, especially this week’s, I find myself asking who this information is truly helping. Clearly, the purpose of CRT is altruistic, to change the law to help the oppressed. However, it often times appears as though those who write in academia forget to “look to the bottom,” and instead write to a selective audience, those who are privileged enough to receive a level of education that makes it possible for them to understand these texts. But what does it mean for CRT, and for academia in general, if the subjects of papers and research are not included in these aforementioned elite groups and are unable to understand what is being written about them? How do we give the oppressed access to the tools that will benefit them the most? If these tools are encoded in academese, jargon that only select academics comprehend, knowledge is being confined within the elite, and is not being utilized for its intended purpose. In scrutinizing minority groups under a magnifying glass to no benefit of the subjects, researchers are exploiting and appropriating daily struggle of the maltreated.
So now I ask myself… what is the point in me taking this course? Sure, I’m learning these interesting ideas about race, history, law, and society, but what will I – or more importantly, what should I –do with this knowledge?