Brian Kruger
Welcome to Richard Helppie’s Common Bridge, the fiercely nonpartisan discussion that seeks policy solutions to issues of the day. Rich is a successful entrepreneur in the technology, health, and finance space. He and his wife Leslie are also philanthropists with interest in civic and artistic endeavors, with a primary focus on medically and educationally underserved children.
Richard Helppie
Welcome to the Common Bridge. Today we’re going to discuss a topic that is very much in the news. And frankly, there’s a lot of emotion around this topic, an intense amount of polarization, but unfortunately, not a lot of knowledge or discussion. And that topic, of course, is critical race theory. So today, we’re going to talk a little bit– we won’t be able to cover every single aspect in tangent– but where did it come from? What is the proper role of critical race theory in society today? And how might policy at local and state and federal levels be affected and importantly, what will be taught to today’s schoolchildren? And bravely wading into this topic is our guest from the world of law– Professor Rakhi Ruparelia. Professor Ruparelia comes to us today from the University of Ottawa, where she is the Associate Professor in the Faculty of Common Law Section. Professor Ruparelia earned her master of Law at Harvard University and her masters of social work at Carleton University. Prior to her work at Harvard, she taught torts at the University of Ottawa and completing her graduate studies, she joined the prison reform Advocacy Center in Cincinnati, Ohio, and there she established and directed a community legal clinic to assist ex prisoners with legal issues that were impeding their transition back to society. Her current research interests include torts, criminal law, critical race theory and feminist legal theory. Her recent publications have considered the impact of criminal law on racialized communities as well as the capacity of tort law to address racial discrimination. She is the co-editor of “Critical Torts”, a collection of essays that explores the potential and the limitations of tort law as a progressive tool for social change. In addition to her teaching and research, Professor Ruparelia has conducted judicial training sessions on very sensitive issues surrounding sexual assault and domestic violence. She has worked with the National Judicial Institute to plan and deliver anti-racism training to judges, and she has participated as a member of the Canadian Bar Association’s Standing Committee on Equity and the National Steering Committee of the National Association of Women and the Law. You can find out more about Professor Rakhi Ruparelia at Richard Helppie.com. I’m anticipating a very free flowing conversation today with a thoughtful and learned person and one who will come on this public forum to discuss this hotly debated topic of critical race theory. And so Professor Ruparelia, welcome to the Common Bridge. Of course, this is the place we discuss the issues of the day, and the opportunities for the moment while exploring our possible policy solutions. Welcome, Professor. (Professor Ruparelia: thank you so much, Rich, it’s a pleasure to be here to speak with you about this important topic.) Professor, our audience likes to know a little bit about our guests, and if you don’t mind, maybe a little bit about your background–Where did you spend your early days? Are there any highlights about the academic prep that I’ve covered, and maybe about your professional work and what you’re up to today?
Professor Rakhi Ruparelia
Sure. I grew up in where I am right now, which is in Canada. I grew up just outside of Toronto, the daughter of immigrants who have come from East Africa, actually, via England, my grandparents were from India. So we have lots of rich cultural heritage. I would say that was a significant part of my upbringing. When I finished high school, I went off to McGill University in Montreal, where I pursued a psychology degree as well as a social work degree. And even to this day, I think I try to bring my social work perspectives to my work in law as well, which as you mentioned, concentrates mostly on the impact of racism on, well, the impact of racism within criminal law and on different communities, as well as how law itself constructs, perpetuates, or has the ability to remedy racism, as well. And it’s an area that I pursued in a few different contexts, including how we screen jurors for racial prejudice, for example, in criminal trials. I’ve also looked at how we teach about racism and the kind of resistance we might encounter and how we might overcome that resistance, as well. So a few different areas that I’ve been looking at, and outside of work, I enjoy spending time with with my very active and very talkative two-year old, who keeps me busy and pretends to read my academic books in a way that’s much more entertaining than what it actually says.
Richard Helppie
Well it wouldn’t be the first child that has appeared spontaneously on the Common Bridge, doing more of this work from home. Well, obviously you’re very well-qualified in this topic, and the personal background just really enhances the kind of insight that you can provide. Let me just start, is there a lay definition for critical race theory? Just what is it?
Professor Rakhi Ruparelia
Yeah, and it’s, I think it’s a really important place to start because we have so much discussion about it, and I’m not sure that there’s a lot of understanding about what it actually means. Essentially, where it comes from, it’s actually a very narrowly subscribed to, I would say, academic framework. So this is not really something that has been out in the public, but it originated in legal scholarship. The idea was that there were a group of scholars who realized and recognize that racism was not being considered as a central tenet of how law operates. And so critical race theory is really looking at how is race interwoven with different institutions, including the law. So essentially, it’s looking at how does systemic racism operate. And although it started as something that was of interest to legal scholars, in particular, who wanted to focus on racism, and make that central to their understanding of how law operates, it also has extended beyond just legal institutions to government and policy and other areas where we can see that racism still inhabits space and affects policies and how people experience society. So at its base as a lay definition, it’s really just understanding that systemic racism is alive and well. And it’s a lens through which we can look at that and understand it and think about ways to dismantle systemic racism.
Richard Helppie
Isn’t that one of the the crux of some of the dispute is that is everything is looked at through a lens of race, when there’s lots of lenses to look through?
Professor Rakhi Ruparelia
Yes, there certainly are a lot of lenses to look through, and I think that the goal of critical race theory and one of the reasons that it began as a theoretical framework, and was seen as an important theoretical framework, is in its effort to make race and racism visible, because we’ve had a tendency to look at racism as something that we shouldn’t be thinking about or seeing, we shouldn’t be seeing race. So we are taught that colorblindness should be our ideal, and that seeing race in some way is in itself racist, and critical race theory challenges that. So critical race theory does not purport to, minimize the impact of other factors in terms of how we understand institutions, but rather says that we need to understand that racism is alive and well, and that it is a part of how these systems operate. And looking at something like law, for example, law not only reflects the racism we see in the rest of society, but it has been complicit in the creation of some of that racism. So for example, we have laws that are still on the books that originated with a very overtly racist underpinning. I can give you an example from the Canadian context, which is a lot of our drug laws and criminal law originated at a time when dominant society was looking to control different racial groups that they saw as being a threat. So for example, opium was criminalized when asian immigrants were seen to be an economic threat and opium was associated with that group. But before then it was not illegal. It wasn’t seen as being a problem. But it was a very targeted legal intervention to criminalize a racial group and in an effort to control them. Now, many of those laws still exist on the books, even though the context may have changed. And what critical race theory is really trying to do is to say, our history is not just behind us, it continues to impact us and it continues to shape our institutions, our policies, our laws. And law, in itself has been a place where we have enacted racism, we’ve created racism and sometimes in terms of how we even defined race and who has access to being called white or who has been labeled as a racial other and therefore not in a position to access advantages that other people might, so I would say critical race theory is not saying that other aspects of people’s experience are irrelevant; to the contrary, actually. But critical race theory is saying that we cannot ignore the important role that race and racism play in how we shape institutions and policies.
Richard Helppie
That kind of gives rise to some of the other terms that are in the news very much today and in education and elsewhere in society. So, is there a good definition for social justice? And maybe another way to look at that as– Is there a way to know we’ve achieved social justice as a nation? I’ll conclude the United States and Canada are arm-in- arm with that?
Professor Rakhi Ruparelia
It’s a great question, because I think that a lot of times we think about these kinds of frameworks, whether whether it’s critical race theory, or any other so called progressive framework to say like, when do we know that it’s worked? Or is there a point where we’ve achieved what we’re looking to do. And I would say that things like social justice and critical race theory, it’s more about a process rather than a goal or an outcome. It’s not to say that we’ll never reach a place where we don’t where it’s not to say that we won’t ever achieve social justice or racial equality, but it’s to recognize that it is going to be a process. And it’s not just about when we’ve reached this point in society, therefore, it’s done. And we don’t need to think about these things anymore. If we’ve learned anything from history, it’s that targets change and the way social inequality manifests itself will keep changing. So it’s hard to say based on what we know today, and how discrimination or marginalization manifests itself today, that that is how it’s going to be 50 years from now, for example, to say that if we could solve today’s problems, we will have solved the problems from here on in, they will keep changing, they’ll keep adapting to what those in power at that time, what they will need or dictate.
Richard Helppie
So in practice is there a difference between critical race theory and programs that are labeled diversity, equity, and inclusion?
Professor Rakhi Ruparelia
Yes, I would say there is, and there may be overlap, but they’re not the same thing. Some of those programs that you see around diversity, equity and inclusion may have critical race theory underpinnings; they may be inspired by ideas that come from critical race theory. But in and of themselves, they don’t necessarily reflect the tenets of critical race theory. For example, one thing I will say about that, too, is that no two programs are created equal, right, as far as training and effectiveness, they’re only going to be as good as the program itself. And, you know, there’s a lot of groups and a lot of organizations who undertake this kind of training, and they are not there’s no standardization of how this kind of training is done, or they’re just done in very, very different ways, and to different levels of effectiveness.
Richard Helppie
We’ve had that in the United States now, like there are ideas and proposals being floated for a federal department of anti racism. And I mean, would that be a practical solution? And what or whose guidelines would be followed? I mean, look, we nobody wants to see racism or racist society. But if we’re trying to sort this out, would a federal department of anti racism be a practical solution?
Professor Rakhi Ruparelia
I think it depends on how it is structured and how it is created. And who would be creating it, because in the same way that a diversity program on its own, you can’t you can’t say it’s going to be effective dependent unless you know how it is actually going to be done. Right. So in theory, that might be a place to start, but some kind of federal agency is only going to be as good as the resources that it has, the thought that goes into it, who gets to shape how this agency would work, what would its mandate be, all of those things would be question marks. Right. And if it was done properly, I think it could be very effective. But it really depends, like, I think that the same challenges that we encounter with training-type programs, whether it’s diversity, inclusion, equity, sometimes the critique event, even from critical race theorists, is that they are token efforts to address a much larger problem. And you know, one thing that critical race theory tries to articulate, is that we need to move beyond this idea that racism is about individual bigots, right. Like it’s not just about individuals who hold biases or prejudices. We’re actually trying to move beyond that to look at how are these ideas ingrained in our systems and in our policies. And if we focus just on individuals, we’re never going to dismantle the larger problems within our systems. So you know, a lot of times diversity training sessions focus on individuals, right and how can you be more considerate of your co workers? Or how can you be more sensitive, and a lot of critical race theorists would say that those things are not really that effective in countering racism. And a lot of critical race theorists would say, for trying to get at anti racism and in a meaningful way, you’re probably not going to do it in a two hour session over lunch. It’s a much larger undertaking. And you know, as I think one of the things that’s happening right now with how critical race theory is being characterized by people who oppose it, is that they are including anything and everything that has to do with racism, or diversity or inclusion or even sexism, for that matter, under the rubric of critical race theory, and it’s mislabeling it, frankly Like it’s not critical race theory, as I said, it’s actually a pretty narrow theoretical framework as far as like where it originated. It’s a, you know, a small group of legal scholars who engage in that kind of analysis. And yet now anything that has anything to do with thinking about anti racism, thinking about white privilege, thinking about anything that might be even remotely connected to diversity, equity inclusion is put under the category.
Richard Helppie
I understand that nuance. And, you know, this might be my dumb question for the day, that it seems that we just keep pushing people into narrow and then more narrow definitions of themselves. My view is — look in the United States of America, we mistreated people of African heritage from the onset. I mean, it was legal to… own them, and the horrors of slavery. And during during my lifetime, Jim Crow laws were in effect, and you can discriminate against a person for accommodations and employmentand all manner of things. But I think the experience of those from African ancestry is different in that that part of our population was not brought here, voluntarily. Everyone else thought there would be an advantage to arriving in the United States to seek their fortunes– or arriving in North America in the case of Canada, and I think I see people what are called tailgating on to the African-American experience, which is unique to African Americans. But what I don’t understand it’s my dumb question, how are we going to have united communities if there’s an insistence that ancestral heritage tops everything?
Professor Rakhi Ruparelia
Well, I think that… I think the response to that is that critical race theory, and people who are advocating approaches to anti racism are not suggesting that ancestral heritage trumps everything. So that there again, the their focus is really on the systems, right? Like, what systems do we have in place right now that that result in some people in society being advantaged by those systems and some people being disadvantaged? When we’re talking about what is divisive and what is unifying, which, you know, has come part of the discussion of critical race theory as well with accusations that it’s actually causing divisions or will cause divisions if we allow critical race theory to be part of, you know, our, our children’s education, we have to also question who gets to decide what’s unifying, and what’s dividing? And the answer is usually, you know, whoever is on the side of being advantaged by certain systems gets to dictate the terms of it, right? It’s like, who gets to who gets to name the game, who gets to set the rules for the game, and who gets to decide who wins the game? And, you know, to say that challenging the rules of the game is somehow divisive is not always going to, it’s not always going to lead to a productive result. And so when we think about critical race theories, it’s looking beyond things like culture or ancestral heritage, it’s understanding that, yes, we might all depending on our background, we might experience racism in different ways. But the truth is, we all experience racism in the sense that some of us are disadvantaged by it, and some of us are beneficiaries of it. And that gets to the idea of it being a systemic issue, not about individuals having bad intentents, but the fact that if you have systemic practices that oppress some groups, those systemic practices are also going to be advantaged in others.
Richard Helppie
That’s very, very articulate the way you’ve presented that. And it makes sense to me, because I do think that most people do want to be kind to others. They do want to be sensitive, and I see people, they’re striving as individuals to be more aware, but you know, they can be in a between a rock and a hard place if you are admiring the the music, the fashion, the food, another culture, are you making strides toward unification? Or are you appropriating the culture? And you’re kind of between a rock and a hard place? And certainly with my heritage on my father’s side, not not a lot of the food’s great, okay, I’m really happy to be in America… But as a person of purely Northern European descent, you know, a white person, right? Is it possible for that white person to not be a white supremacist or a racist? Because while I know that when I’m watching reporting, it’s like, okay, you were born with a certain hue, your great grandparents were of a certain hue, therefore, you must be a white supremists or a racist. Does that seem like it’s fair? Or it’s right? And what can be done about that?
Professor Rakhi Ruparelia
I think it’s a really good question, because it is in parts, in many ways, how critical race theory is being characterized as well, like, is this suggesting then that all white people are racist, or that all white people, I mean, it’s gotten more extreme in some of the discourse where some are claiming that critical race theory is saying white people are all evil, which I can assure you that no critical race theorists or critical race theory in general suggests. But the question I think that you’re raising is really important, because it gets at the distinction, again, between individuals and their intents and their practices and how systems operate. So do we live in a society where white is considered superior or supreme? Yes, I would say that that’s actually very hard to dispute, even though some would, but in part that comes from our history. Like, as you said, we in the states there is, and Canada has a history of slavery as well, that a lot of people don’t realize it wasn’t as extensive as the United States. But, we have a very complex, very extensive history of racism that continues to infiltrate our practices and policies now. So we can’t just say that those are in the past, does that mean that some groups benefit from institutions that advantaged white people over all those times? And that continue to? Absolutely. Does that mean that as individuals, they are racist or hold white supremacist ideas? Not necessarily, right? They may not have their own biases or prejudices that play out. But at the same time, there would be some who claim that if you’re not being actively anti racist, are you complicit in the way these systems operate? And I think it’s in many ways, it’s less productive to talk about individuals and their racism and their biases. Supremacists outside of I mean, you know, there’s obvious places you have KKK members or members of white nationalist groups, and that’s often what people associate with white supremacy. But understanding it in a more holistic way and understanding it as something that there are people who benefit from the systems that perpetuate white supremacy by valuing some things over others, or by giving advantages to some groups over others, then yes, you can be a beneficiary of a system that is white, that purports white supremacy, without necessarily being somebody who holds overtly racist views, if that makes sense.
Richard Helppie
I think that’s a good distinction between racist people, racist behavior and vestiges, where we had a predominantly white culture for a long time. But our country, the United States has always been open to new waves of immigrants, all of whom have added to and changed the fabric of the country. They all brought something with them. I think that’s a beautiful thing. The latest census data that just came out: the largest growth was in people that identified as members of multiple races, the number of mixed race marriages, I think that to me is the way that we begin to understand that we are a human race. Probably a little bit too deep to go into today, but again, I understand people need to be sensitive, and we need to make sure that everyone gets an opportunity, irrespective whether they may be able bodied or disabled, whether they may appear one way or the other. Maybe the tone of their skin or their accent is different. We need to understand that there’s a soul and a mind and a heart they’re in to deal with each other that way, and frankly, I think our society will begin to reflect that. But of course, in the meantime, and the thing that we’re battling against in the Common Bridge, is this incredible partisanship and this divide that’s being fueled by our so called reporting industry. I refuse to call them journalists. Look, I tried to compile the biggest and most prevalent objections to critical race theory. And unless someone wants to listen to a six-hour podcast with you and I, we can’t cover them all. But let me just pick out a couple of them. A number of states have attempted to outlaw the teaching of critical race theory. They’ve had a difficult time. Governors are not supporting… history is history… Michigan has a proposed law that quote “prohibits teaching that any race is inherently superior or inferior to any other race, that the United States is a fundamentally racist country, and that a person is inherently racist or oppressive based on race.” So any view on attempts to outlaw the teaching, or the Michigan framework a good one and not so good one?
Professor Rakhi Ruparelia
I think it’s terrible. As a starting point. And you know, they’re not alone. Right? There’s a lot of states, I think the last I saw there was 27 states trying to pass similar legislation with in some cases, slightly different wording. The idea though, is, you know, first of all, how are they using critical race theory, I mean it if they’re not using it in and some I should note that some of the legislation that’s being proposed by different states doesn’t necessarily they don’t necessarily use the term critical race theory, and some do. But really, what they’re trying to do is they’re trying to outlaw discussions about racism, it seems like a very bizarre way to deal with racism in society. And yet, it’s still, in many ways, a very predictable way. I mean, anytime we’ve made progress towards racial equality, whether it’s abolishing slavery or ending Jim Crow, there has been a backlash. And we have– it’s an inevitable part really, of social progress, it seems that there will be a backlash. And, you know, our job as a society is to work through that backlash and and to keep moving forward. And I think what’s happening now is, you know, we’ve had so many things that have become, in the so many issues around racism, police, particularly around police violence, that have forced this issue into the forefront of people’s thoughts. And, you know, we’ve really seen this momentum gained by Black Lives Matter, and, you know, in some way, some people claim that this is sort of an unprecedented time, in terms of the conversations around racism. This can be perceived as a threat to how we know things, how things are right now, and how we understand society. And it seems to me that this is yet another way of trying to shut down the conversation on racism. It has really nothing to do with critical race theory. It’s about let’s not talk about this, and characterizing discussions about racism as being racist in and of themselves. Which, you know, again, it doesn’t really make a lot of sense and to try to claim that we’re going to pardon the pun, but whitewash history and pretend that racism wasn’t really a key part of how society developed, like, you can’t really talk about American history without talking about slavery. And you can’t really think about how racism continues in American society without thinking about the, the effects of of that time, like, you know, there’s lots of research that’s talked about, for example, the wealth discrepancies between African American families and white families that can be traced back to that time, right slavery in terms of who benefited financially and and who didn’t. So, you know, it’s not just about present day racism that’s affecting us, it’s our historical context and take away that historical context because we would rather not think about it, or we’d rather pretend that we live in an equal society, and that we always have, that does nobody any good, that’s not a benefit to white groups, or communities of color. And it certainly doesn’t do anything favorable for our kids by not teaching them what their history is how racism continues to operate. And you know, thinking about it as something that’s divisive, or that might make some kids uncomfortable. We also have to think about which kids are those right, like, who’s gonna find that devisive? And for whom is this conversation supposed to be made comfortable? I mean, think about the kids of color in those classes, who have their own histories and their own experiences erased. Is that really supporting being their understanding of their present experiences and also their historical experiences? And what message does it send to them that we’re just erasing that part of what they identify with and you know, messages we’re doing that make not even necessarily to make the white kids comfortable but to make their parents or legislators or whoever thinks that, that there’s something wrong with teaching this.
Richard Helppie
The teaching of history, you know, clear eyed, I think it’s something that people can agree on. And that whitewashing of history that, look, we did some terrible things. And we did some terrible things around race. I don’t think there’s any dispute about that. When I consider things like we can look at race-based police violence, people look at that as a current day problem that needs to be addressed. But the differences that I think some of the critics of critical race theory would say is that there’s, you know, four part framework that, you know, hey, don’t teach that the United States is fundamentally racist or sexist, you can teach that there were racial issues, there were sex discrimination. But look, is that the basis of the country? So can we teach a more complete history? Can we talk more candidly about the issues today without having to try to say that the roots of why we exist as a nation are baked into overt racism?
Professor Rakhi Ruparelia
So I guess my first question to you about that would be who’s teaching it? Who’s teaching it this way? Right, because I mean, one of the it’s it’s in many ways that these concerns they’ve been constructed in some ways out of thin air. There’s no indication when we’re talking about critical race theory, I don’t know of any schools from, you know, kindergarten to grade 12, who are actually teaching it as a, as a critical race theory framework, like you would learn about in graduate school and in law, if you’re studying this area,
Richard Helppie
Again, all I tried to do is gather what people were saying against it, because I’m not the subject matter expert at all. But you say, who’s teaching it? Well, the National Education Association, which is the largest teachers union in the United States, had a full throated endorsement on their website. And when people were made aware of it, the NEA backed off days later, so I don’t think it’s..
Professor Rakhi Ruparelia
I’m sorry, when you say endorsement. So you mean endorsement of critical race theory as an approach? (Rich: as an approach and something to be taught.) And then I think what people are really talking about is to what extent racism should be talked about in school, and how it should be talked about, right? Because we’re not– critical race theory, again, it’s sort of a it’s a misnomer for what, what people are talking about what their issues are with, with education. Nobody, I can promise you that no kindergartener is reading, scholarship by critical race theorists from law.
Richard Helppie
Even to your point though, I’ve gotten various reports that, you know, first graders were asked to deconstruct their racial and sexual identities and rank themselves according to their power and privilege. And I’m trying to run these to ground and one of them was reported in about a dozen places. What I found was it was one report was pointing to what was reported elsewhere, which was reported by another place I never got down to: here’s a human being that actually made this allegation. So I don’t know where that came from. So I see that, my natural suspicion is raised. I’ve not personally seen that. And I do a lot of work in schools and schools that are… America. They’re racially balanced, same sex couples, we’ve got transgender kids, and we’re all just about trying to help them achieve. And we like making sure that the young women understand that math and engineering and computer science is something within their grasp. They love the movie Hidden Figures. And yet we have others in the academic community saying, well, you know, math is racist. Which now I kind of want people measuring my medicine and building my bridges just to do good math, and I know lots of good mathematicians of every stripe. But you asked the question you pose was who’s teaching it? Well, the NEA came out and said, that’s what they’re doing.
Professor Rakhi Ruparelia
My point Rich would be how are they teaching it, right? So you know, the story that you talked about with the first graders that you had trouble kind of getting to the source of it? I think that, you know, when there’s sort of a campaign against an idea, the opposition will try to pick out sensationalized stories to show the absurdity of something, right, to paint the worst picture possible, of how something is getting portrayed. Now, whether that that happened, or how it happened, it’s hard to say without having been there. But it’s also to say, it’s like the first comment that I was making about diversity training. They’re not all created equal. Not all teachers are going to do a good job with teaching anti racism ideas. And that’s another reason why they need support so that they can build the capacity and the skills to do it in a meaningful and effective way. But to say that we shouldn’t be teaching it at all, is something very, very different right to say that we should be teaching it better, perhaps is I think something we can all agree on if if we could agree on the premise that it should be taught, right? And I guess when I was asking about who’s teaching it this way, do we have any evidence that anybody is teaching racism in that way to, you know, to have people say that I know you’ve came across that one story, but to generally say, to teach kids that, well, if you’re white, then you are evil. And if you are a student of color, you are oppressed, I would say, that’s a complete misrepresentation of what that kind of…
Richard Helppie
Well, that’s, that was my point, I’m out, I’m out trying to find it. And I don’t have any personal experience. And I can’t find a good primary source. And yet I do a lot of research, I’ve invited many people to come on this program to talk about this that are pro or anti. And it seems like nobody wants to come out of the shadows. I just thought it was so prevalent in the news, I wanted to shine some light on it and get some perspective, and there’s a lot of noise out there. And I’m trying to help sort out the noise.
Professor Rakhi Ruparelia
Yes. And I think that’s really important, because I think you’re absolutely right, there is a lot of noise out there. And I’m not sure, from my perspective, that the noise actually has a lot of basis, right. Like I think that some of it is coming from a place of paranoia, but what you know that the kinds of terms that have been used to describe critical race theory, by those who oppose it, are you know, things like, indoctrination, right, that’s what even former President Trump had said, like, it’s, you know, there’s words like toxic. And, you know, there, there’s this characterization of critical race theory, and anyone who would be teaching kids about anti racism in any way as if they are trying to brainwash our children and tell them, like how to think and you know, how to, you know, to be thinking of, as you said, like that, America is fundamentally a racist country, and that, you know, you’re either good or evil in that debate, depending on the color of your skin. It’s just a mischaracterization of the debate. But it’s also I think, it reflects the way that critical race theory is being misconstrued to serve a political perspective.
Richard Helppie
You know, Donald Trump has had massive problems, and I’ve spoken about that, and just maybe shifting gears a little bit Rakhi, and this is fascinating, and I hope that you’ll come back so that we can dive deeper into this, because this is really, really strong. And I cannot tell you how grateful I am that you’ve taken this time. But what would your biggest criticism of critical race theory be?
Professor Rakhi Ruparelia
Well, that’s, um, that’s a really it’s an interesting question. Personally, I think that there is, there is a lot in critical race theory that could be helpful to everyone. And I think that maybe one of the myths about critical race theory is that there is sort of, you know, one approach to things that come out of critical race theory, it’s, it’s just as rich an area as any others as fact, as far as theoretical frameworks and different ideas, and critical race theorists do disagree with each other as much as scholars or activists in other areas. One thing that I do appreciate about critical race theory is that, you know, one of its basic tenants outside of challenging colorblindness is also to be thinking about how to move theory into practice, right? So it’s not just about pontificating and keeping it to the ivory tower, but also like, how do we actually translate this into practice so that we can make meaningful change? So I would say, I don’t really have actually a lot of criticisms about it, because I think there’s there’s so much value in critical race theory. But one thing I guess I would like to see now is more… given that this term is is out in the public, and is is being thrown around in ways that are not always accurate from those who oppose it. I think I would like to see more more accurate information come out about critical race theory. So I would really like to see critical race theorists sort of have more of a public persona to represent how this could help us. And I think that, you know, we rarely see theories sort of come out into public debate, when we think of something as an academic framework, it doesn’t become part of the public discourse. But I think we’re at a point now where it’s out there, and people are trying to figure out what does it mean, and what do we do with it? And I’d like to see sort of have the other voice out there more and more and to have a more balanced debate so that, you know, the public can be educated about what does this actually mean? And is it really this thing that we should be afraid of for our kids, and you know, don’t we want our kids to have a well-rounded education, and isn’t it really about teaching our kids to think? And to think critically? It’s not really about indoctrination. It’s about how do we get our kids reflecting on these issues? How do we get them to be independent thinkers? How do we get them to be thinking about their role in social change as they grow up? And how do we get them to assume responsibility for that social change. And all of that starts young, and it comes from ideas that come from many different areas. But critical race theory, we can see, we can see how much racism is still affecting our society, and not just in the very overt ways that we see with police violence, but in other ways, right. There’s still disparities in health, there’s disparities in wealth, in education, and in jobs like we there’s, there’s no area, you can really point to where you won’t see disparities, that are where there are racial where there are not racial disparities. And we have to unpack that, and critical race theory gives us one tool to do that. And I think that we need to embrace that. And we need to, we need to teach our kids how to think critically about these issues, so they can learn how to unpack it. And just as if, you know, a side note on that, you know, there was recent research that actually talked about, and there’s lots of research that does talk about this, but having kids learn and talk about prejudice, when they’re young, leads to less prejudice overall, like that’s, that’s not a surprising concept to me that if you you know, you can think about these things, when you’re younger, and think about how it operates, it gives you a chance to process it. And I think and to to learn to or think about how you would dismantle it.
Richard Helppie
You’re making a great case there. Look, racism is taught, it’s a learned behavior, that little kids don’t care. And people that are growing up in areas where they’re dealing with lots of people different than themselves are different versus people that are, you know, maybe isolated, and just have a fear of the other. But I do think that, you know, open inquiry is the pathway, away from extremism, and that I don’t think it’s all one way or the other. And this why this conversation is so good. And I think kind of what I’m inferring that you’re advocating is that look, we should talk about the effect of race in society, maybe from a past, present, and future, you know, wherewere we 200 years ago? Where were we 50 years ago? Where are we today? What’s ahead? And I think that the other thing that we need to get into is, let’s look at some statistical analyses. By way of example, when I looked at household income broken down by race, it looked really bad. And then when you took out the single parent, never married, things kind of balanced. It didn’t really matter as much about what the race was versus whether or not there was an intact coupling that was at the head of that family.
Professor Rakhi Ruparelia
I again, back to critical race theory sort of asks us to look at how do we unpack this right? How do we recognize race or racism in a situation where we have been socialized to ignore it or to think that colorblindness is the proper way to do things, even though on some level, we all recognize race? And we we can, you know, it’s not the know, that people say, you know, a lot of times I don’t, I don’t notice race, it’s it’s not the case, right? People notice race, but they’ve been taught not to talk about it, or to put weight on it as the polite thing to do or the socially appropriate non racist thing to do. But does that sometimes disadvantage us in understanding the dynamics, the situation that could be called racially motivated, or that may have a racial underpinning? And, you know, I think that critical race theory, would it’s really helpful for as it’s getting us to ask the questions, right? It’s, it’s, it’s not saying that we have to look at things in a particular way. But it’s saying, how do we ask the question so that we can understand a situation in a more nuanced, holistic way that takes into account things that we’ve been taught not to take into account really to take, you know, to to understand the relevance of racism?
Richard Helppie
Well, I think you’ve made a great definition difference between racism and critical race theory. To me, at least it’s been enlightening for me to learn about this and to deal with somebody that is deep into it. And I can also see that our so called reporting industry has taken scraps of things and extrapolated them for their own purposes. Cheering on, you know, Team Red or Team Blue or, you know, Team Right or Team Left which is incredibly damaging to our ability to move forward as a human race and make sure everybody gets an opportunity. Rakhi this has been a phenomenal conversation and I want to be guarded about over use of your time. And I do appreciate your willingness to talk about this again. As we kind of move into the close today, I’m going to ask three or four things that because it may just be one answer, just to try to summarize where we are, maybe the some of the best policies that could be enacted today if there’s a good example or maybe some bad examples. And are there things that we could recommend people do today? or stop doing today? And is there anything that we didn’t cover or any other closing thoughts that you’ve got for our audience? Because this is such a deep and broad topic? I think it deserves us meeting again.
Professor Rakhi Ruparelia
I agree, I think that there’s that there’s so much for to talk about, because it’s really getting at the heart of, you know, what, what do we do about racism? Right. And I, I think that one of the things that sometimes stalls us, is that we spend so much time talking about whether or not something is racist, right, and, or whether a system is racist, or again, I’m not talking about individuals here. But even the larger questions about policies or processes, institutions, and if we could move past that, to understand that racism has been such an integral part of the fabric of society, that we need to think about the ways that it has become sometimes invisible, but it’s such an integral part, that what do we do to move forward? So what I would really like to see is more discussions about, like, how do we, how do we deal with it? How do we dismantle it, and you know, that I think requires us being able to name it, to talk about it to be open to those discussions, and to come at those discussions with an openness, right, and an understanding that talking about systemic racism is not an accusation to white people, that they’re, they’re racist as individuals, right. But that to say that these institutions exist. So to get us past our emotional reactions to discussions of racism past the defensiveness, past our discomfort, and, you know, our I think, you know, one of the things that kept coming up in the legislation, legislative attempts at banning critical race theory was that, you know, we shouldn’t be talking about race in a way that makes people uncomfortable, or encourages guilt. I think these are, unfortunately, or fortunately, depending on how you look at it, an inevitable part of these discussions. And you know, you can think in your life, pretty much anything that kind of pushes us to grow and to think bigger, will cause us some kind of discomfort and racism, discussions about racism are no exception to that. And we have to embrace the discomfort to say, what can we do with it, it’s, it’s not going to be useful if we’re paralyzed by it. But if we can turn that into something constructive, and use that to strategize improvements to our society, then we should take advantage of that, we should work together, we shouldn’t see this as something that’s an us versus them, we should all have an interest in dismantling racism, it will make for a better society, for all of us as utopian as that might sound. But that is the direction that I would really like us to go eventually, as a society.
Richard Helppie
Well, I would say you’d have my full throated and full hearted support for that, that we can’t deal with the issues of the day, or seize the opportunities of the moment, unless we have real discussions, we see so much turmoil in our world today, because people want to choose sides, they want to choose a hero, that’s always right, or they want to choose a villain that’s always wrong. They’re willing to overlook massive failures by the people that are in their hero view. And they will ascribe any evil to someone that they perceive as the villain because they’ll believe almost anything. And by the way, is universal. That’s right, left, it doesn’t matter. It’s just looking at the other. And I think more we discuss, we find out that our humaneness, our kindness, our desires that we leave a better place for our children and grandchildren is universal, and that maybe our ancestors have left us some debris that we need to deal with and that I don’t know maybe the results of the 2030 census will show that we’re making some progress along those lines. But Professor Ruparelia, you have been an amazing and outstanding guest and I so much look forward to, again, having you on the Common Bridge. Any final thought at all for our audience before I close this here.
Professor Rakhi Ruparelia
I just want to applaud you for taking on this important topic, Rich. I really enjoyed our discussion and I really appreciate the opportunity to, to talk with you about this and think sort of ahead to where we can move forward. But I really appreciate the opportunity. It’s been a pleasure for me to speak with you.
Richard Helppie
Well, thank you very much. And we have been talking today with Professor Rakhi Ruparelia of the University of Ottawa on the sensitive and emotional and very important topic of critical race theory, racism and how to create a better society. We agree that it’s education, its dialogue, and its understanding. We’ll be back on this topic. I think all my listeners and viewers on the Common Bridge. The Common Bridge, of course, available on most podcast outlets, on YouTube TV, it’s the channel Richard Helppie’s Common Bridge and of course, at the website Richard Helppie.com you’ll find more information about Professor Ruparelia and other of our guests there. This is Rich Helppie signing off on the Common Bridge.
Brian Kruger
You have been listening to Richard Helppie’s Common Bridge podcast. Recording and post production provided by Stunt3 Multimedia. All rights are reserved by Richard Helppie. For more information, visit RichardHelppie.com.
