Why do Conservatives Hate Critical Race Theory?

Critical race theory, or C.R.T., began as a scholarly lens for interrogating how legal structures perpetuate racial hierarchy (Delgado & Stefancic, 2017). Until 2020 it rarely surfaced outside graduate seminars. Yet within months, it became the focus of conservative talk shows, gubernatorial campaigns, and state legislation. Commentators on the right describe C.R.T. as un-American, divisive, or even Marxist (Heritage Foundation, 2020). Dozens of Republican-controlled legislatures have now restricted classroom discussion of race or dismantled university diversity offices they perceive as vehicles for C.R.T. (UCLA C.R.T. Forward, 2023). To understand the intensity of the backlash, one must examine the clash between C.R.T.’s structural account of racism and four long-standing conservative commitments: classical‐liberal individualism, color-blind jurisprudence, anti-collectivism, and meritocratic ideals.

What Critical Race Theory Argues

C.R.T. scholars contend that racism is not solely a matter of private prejudice. Rather, discrimination is embedded in statutes, case law, property rules, zoning codes, and cultural narratives that appear neutral on their face (Delgado & Stefancic, 2017). Concepts such as structural racism describe feedback loops that keep disparities in place even when overt bigotry is illegal. Intersectionality highlights how race intersects with gender, class, or sexuality to compound disadvantage (Crenshaw, 1991). By shifting focus from individual intent to systemic outcomes, C.R.T. asks courts and policymakers to examine how “color-blind” rules may still produce racially skewed effects.

The Conservative Intellectual Framework

Classical-Liberal Individualism

Conservatives trace their commitment to individualism to Enlightenment thinkers such as John Locke and to the Declaration of Independence, which defines legitimate government as a protector of individual rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Because rights adhere to persons rather than groups, conservatives argue that justice requires neutral rules applied uniformly to everyone. Race-specific preferences, in their view, substitute collective identity for personal merit and therefore violate the equal-rights promise embedded in the Declaration and later codified in the Fourteenth Amendment (McGee, 2023a). Policies that treat citizens differently on the basis of group membership are said to erode both personal responsibility and social cohesion, reinforcing the conservative belief that the state should safeguard individual liberty, not redesign society to achieve group-based outcomes.

Color-Blindness

The principle of color-blindness crystallized in Chief Justice John Roberts’s assertion that “the way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race” (Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1, 2007). For conservatives this sentence captures an ethical and constitutional stance: government should neither punish nor reward anyone because of race. They see post-1960s civil-rights statutes as endorsing a strict neutrality in public decision-making, making race-conscious remedies presumptively illicit. When C.R.T. highlights systemic racism or calls for race-based redress, conservatives answer that such proposals re-inscribe the very racial categories the civil-rights movement sought to eliminate. In their view, true equality is achieved when institutions refuse to classify citizens by color, allowing individual character and effort, rather than ancestry, to determine life chances.

Anti-Collectivism

Anti-collectivism flows from the conviction that freedom depends on treating the individual—not the class, race, or nation—as the basic unit of moral concern. Economists such as F. A. Hayek warned that any policy assigning benefits or burdens to groups rather than persons risks sliding toward coercive social planning (Hayek, 1944). Ayn Rand likewise argued that collectivist ethics inevitably sacrifice individual flourishing to an abstract group ideal (Rand, 1957). Conservatives therefore resist frameworks that sort people into “oppressor” and “oppressed” categories, as they believe such labels negate personal agency and invite state-imposed equalization. Because C.R.T. foregrounds structural hierarchies and collective responsibility, anti-collectivists perceive it as incompatible with a free society ordered around voluntary exchange and individual accountability.

Meritocracy

Michael Young coined meritocracy as a cautionary term, yet in the United States, the concept evolved into a positive ideal that opportunities and rewards should hinge on talent, effort, and achievement (Young, 1958). Conservatives embrace this goal, contending that standardized tests, competitive hiring, and performance-based promotion foster both fairness and economic dynamism. Acknowledging structural bias, in their estimation, risks legitimizing quotas or relaxed standards that would erode confidence in institutions and stigmatize intended beneficiaries. Court challenges to affirmative-action programs and corporate diversity targets often invoke Title VII or the Equal Protection Clause to defend the principle that the same criteria must judge every applicant. Because C.R.T. argues that conventional metrics already encode privilege, conservatives see the theory as an invitation to discard merit in favor of group parity—an outcome they believe undermines excellence and public trust.

From Ivory Tower to Cable News

For decades, C.R.T. circulated mainly in legal journals. The pivot came after the murder of George Floyd in May 2020. Corporations, universities, and federal agencies launched anti-bias trainings, some citing C.R.T. language about privilege or systemic oppression. Conservative activist Christopher Rufo argued on social media that the term critical race theory could serve as a catch-all label for those initiatives (Rufo, 2020). Within weeks, Fox News segments featured Rufo’s claims. In September 2020, the Office of Management and Budget issued Memorandum M-20-34 directing agencies to “cease and desist” trainings that invoked CRT or white privilege (O.M.B., 2020). President Trump then signed Executive Order 13950, asserting that such trainings were “divisive” and contrary to the doctrine that individuals should not bear collective guilt (Executive Office of the President, 2020). These moves elevated an academic theory into headline fodder and supplied model language that state legislators soon replicated.

Legislative Cascade: The State Response

By mid-2023 at least 18 states had enacted laws limiting how teachers, professors, or public employees could talk about race (UCLA C.R.T. Forward, 2023). A few illustrative statutes reveal common patterns.

• Florida. House Bill 7, dubbed the Stop W.O.K.E. Act, bars instruction that “compels” students or employees to believe they are inherently oppressive or should feel guilt due to race (Florida Legislature, 2022). A companion law, Senate Bill 266 (2023), forbids public universities from expending state funds on diversity, equity, and inclusion—frequently portrayed as C.R.T. proxies—forcing institutions to close or repurpose diversity offices (Diaz, 2023).

• Texas. Senate Bill 3 (2021) restricts K-12 discussion of current events and slavery; Senate Bill 17 (2023) abolishes D.E.I. units at state universities and bans hiring committees from requesting diversity statements (McGee, 2023b). Attorney General Paxton has sued districts he claims violate the ban (Lopez, 2021).

• Idaho. House Bill 377 (2021) withholds funding from schools that teach that any group is inherently responsible for past oppression (Idaho Legislature, 2021).

• Oklahoma. House Bill 1775 (2021) prohibits public institutions from teaching eight “divisive concepts,” mirroring Trump’s order (Oklahoma Legislature, 2021).

• Tennessee. Public Chapter 818 (2022) lists fourteen forbidden concepts and mandates biennial surveys on “viewpoint diversity.”

• South Dakota and North Dakota. H.B. 1012 (2022) and H.B. 1508 (2021) bar C.R.T. in higher education and public schools, respectively (South Dakota Legislature, 2022; North Dakota Legislative Assembly, 2021).

• Utah, Arkansas, Indiana, North Carolina, West Virginia, and Kansas adopted parallel measures between 2023 and 2024, often using nearly identical statutory language.

Although phrased as bans on coercive teaching, many of these statutes contain vague definitions that encourage self-censorship (Time Staff, 2023).

Rhetorical Strategies

Conservative critiques of C.R.T. rely on several themes.

1. Marxist framing. Commentaries describe C.R.T. as importing a class-struggle template into race relations (Heritage Foundation, 2020).

2. Protection of children. School-board challengers argue the theory teaches white children to hate themselves and Black children to view themselves as victims, a claim repeated in legislative debates (UCLA C.R.T. Forward, 2023).

3. Civil rights inversion. Opponents contend that because the Civil Rights Act bans discrimination, any curriculum assigning moral standing by race violates equal protection norms (Abbott, 2023).

4. National unity. O.E. 13950 asserts that C.R.T. “misrepresents” American principles of shared citizenship (Executive Office of the President, 2020).

These talking points turn structural critiques into threats against individual dignity.

Litigation and Administrative Enforcement

Beyond statutes, conservative officials deploy civil-rights law as a sword. Republican attorneys general have launched investigations of corporate training programs, claiming they discriminate against white or male employees. America First Legal’s complaint against I.B.M. drew on Title VII to argue that diversity bonuses constitute unlawful quotas (Mark, 2024). Universities now review syllabi for prohibited language, and Indiana’s 2024 tenure-reform law lets trustees discipline faculty who “substantially endorse” C.R.T. concepts (Indiana General Assembly, 2024).

Classroom Impact

Surveys of Florida and Texas teachers show widespread uncertainty; many have removed primary-source documents such as Frederick Douglass’s “Fourth of July” speech, fearing accusations of encouraging guilt (Time Staff, 2023). Professional-development vendors now market “C.R.T.-free” curricula. Critics argue that the chilling effect extends well beyond the scope of C.R.T., restricting candid discussion of American history (Diaz, 2023).

Dissenting Conservative Voices

Not all right-of-center thinkers endorse the bans. Libertarian writers warn that dictating curricular content undermines free speech. David French, for instance, objects to C.R.T. in principle yet opposes government censorship on First-Amendment grounds. Still, party leadership frames restrictions as civil-rights enforcement rather than suppression, arguing the state must prevent compelled speech.

Sidenote: Limitation of Conflict Theories

Conflict perspectives—including classical Marxism, power-elite theory, feminist standpoint theory, and critical race theory—share a core analytic move: they posit that a single axis of domination (class, gender, race, or some other hierarchical cleavage) structures social life and explains patterned inequality (Coser, 1956; Collins, 1998). This reductionist strategy lends clarity and rhetorical force but also imposes an inherent explanatory ceiling. Research in social psychology, behavioral economics, and life-course criminology shows that human conduct emerges from intersecting biological, psychological, situational, and cultural inputs that operate across multiple levels of analysis (Bronfenbrenner, 1979; Sampson & Laub, 1993). A single-factor model, no matter how rigorously elaborated, inevitably omits much of that causal landscape.

Intersectionality was introduced to patch this gap by examining how race, gender, and class “intersect” to produce unique forms of subordination (Crenshaw, 1991). While intersectional analysis acknowledges more than one dimension, it typically aggregates only a handful of status positions, treating them as additive or multiplicative effects within the same structural paradigm. Empirical studies that apply intersectionality often stop at two or three variables—race and gender, or class and sexuality—because methodological tractability declines sharply as additional dimensions are introduced (Hancock, 2007). The resulting models remain sparsely populated relative to the dozens of known determinants that quantitative sociologists, epidemiologists, and criminologists find predictive of life outcomes (Carmines & Fowler, 2020).

Moreover, single-axis or limited-axis conflict theories underplay feedback loops among domains such as neurobiology, family process, neighborhood context, and macroeconomic cycles. Complexity theorists argue that emergent behavior in social systems cannot be captured by isolating one or two “master” variables; instead, non-linear interactions generate outcomes not readily inferred from any single dimension (Byrne & Callaghan, 2014). Consequently, even when intersectionality adds a second or third axis, the framework remains poorly equipped to accommodate multifactorial causation, path dependency, or reciprocal determinism. Put differently, expanding a one-factor model into a three-factor model is arithmetically possible but theoretically modest; it still presumes that broad structural positions overshadow the myriad proximal influences documented in contemporary behavioral science.

In sum, conflict theories gain narrative power by spotlighting a dominant cleavage. Yet, that same parsimony limits their capacity to explain the full variability of human behavior in a multilevel, interdependent world. Scholars seeking comprehensive explanations must therefore integrate, rather than simply stack, structural insights with the micro-level and developmental mechanisms emphasized in complementary paradigms.

Why the Conflict Endures

Three dynamics sustain the backlash. First, C.R.T. questions narratives of equal opportunity that underpin American identity; rejecting it reaffirms the story that the nation has largely solved racism. Second, the theory can be caricatured because the public rarely reads original texts. Third, parent-centered activism grants political legitimacy to those claiming to defend children from ideological harm (UCLA C.R.T. Forward, 2023).

Conclusion

Conservatives hate C.R.T. because it collides with foundational beliefs about individualism, color-blindness, and merit. Political entrepreneurs amplified that collision, converting an academic framework into a potent campaign issue. Statutes, lawsuits, and executive orders now restrict the discussion of systemic racism in much of the United States. Whether those measures survive constitutional scrutiny will depend on courts and elections, yet the underlying philosophical divide—structural versus individual explanations of inequality—seems unlikely to disappear. As long as Americans disagree about whether racism is primarily a matter of hearts or institutions, the debate over C.R.T. will remain central to the nation’s struggle over how to teach its own history.

References

• Abbott, G. (2023, February 7). Memorandum to state agencies on diversity, equity and inclusion. Office of the Governor, State of Texas. https://gov.texas.gov
• Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and design. Harvard University Press.
• Byrne, D., & Callaghan, G. (2014). Complexity theory and the social sciences: The state of the art. Routledge.
• Carmines, E. G., & Fowler, A. (2020). The multilevel determinants of social and political behavior. Annual Review of Political Science, 23, 101–118. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-polisci-051718-033207
• Collins, R. (1998). The sociology of philosophies: A global theory of intellectual change. Belknap Press.
• Coser, L. A. (1956). The functions of social conflict. Free Press.
• Crenshaw, K. (1991). Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity politics, and violence against women of color. Stanford Law Review, 43(6), 1241–1299. https://doi.org/10.2307/1229039
• Delgado, R., & Stefancic, J. (2017). Critical race theory: An introduction (3rd ed.). New York University Press.
• Diaz, J. (2023, May 15). Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis signs a bill banning DEI initiatives in public colleges. NPR. https://www.npr.org/2023/05/15/1176210007
• Executive Office of the President. (2020, September 22). Executive Order 13950: Combating race and sex stereotyping. https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/presidential-actions/executive-order-combating-race-sex-stereotyping/
• Florida Legislature. (2022). House Bill 7, 2022 Regular Session. https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2022/7
• Hancock, A. M. (2007). When multiplication does not equal quick addition: Examining intersectionality as a research paradigm. Perspectives on Politics, 5(1), 63–79. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1537592707070065
• Hayek, F. A. (1944). The road to serfdom. University of Chicago Press.
• Heritage Foundation. (2020, September 11). Trump bans “divisive, un-American propaganda training” for federal workforce. https://www.heritage.org/civil-society/commentary/trump-bans-divisive-un-american-propaganda-training-federal-workforce
• Idaho Legislature. (2021). House Bill 377, 2021 Regular Session. https://legislature.idaho.gov/sessioninfo/2021/legislation/H0377/
• Indiana General Assembly. (2024). Senate Bill 202, 123rd General Assembly, Regular Session. https://iga.in.gov/legislative/2024/bills/senate/202
• Lopez, B. (2021, December 2). Texas social studies bill targeting critical race theory becomes law. The Texas Tribune. https://www.texastribune.org
• Mark, J. (2024, January 21). When Reagan tried to undo affirmative action, corporations fought back. The Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com
• McGee, K. (2023a, February 7). Gov. Greg Abbott tells state agencies to stop considering diversity in hiring. The Texas Tribune. https://www.texastribune.org/2023/02/07/greg-abbott-diversity-equity-inclusion-illegal/
• McGee, K. (2023b, April 19). Texas Senate approves bill that would ban diversity programs in public universities. The Texas Tribune. https://www.texastribune.org/2023/04/19/texas-senate-dei-universities/
• North Dakota Legislative Assembly. (2021). House Bill 1508, 67th Legislative Assembly, Special Session. https://www.ndlegis.gov/assembly/67-2021/special-session/bill-text/HB1508enr.pdf
• Office of Management and Budget. (2020, September 4). Memorandum M-20-34: Training in critical race theory and white privilege. https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/M-20-34.pdf
• Oklahoma Legislature. (2021). House Bill 1775, 58th Legislature, Regular Session. https://www.oklegislature.gov/BillInfo.aspx?Bill=hb1775&Session=2100
• Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1, 551 U.S. 701 (2007).
• Rand, A. (1957). Atlas shrugged. Random House.
• Rufo, C. (2020, September 2). [Tweet]. Twitter. https://twitter.com/realchrisrufo/status/1301258282402256898
• Sampson, R. J., & Laub, J. H. (1993). Crime in the making: Pathways and turning points through life. Harvard University Press.
• South Dakota Legislature. (2022). House Bill 1012, 97th Legislative Session. https://sdlegislature.gov/Session/Bill/22926
• Time Staff. (2023, March 20). Data show the anti-C.R.T. movement is far from over. Time Magazine. https://time.com
• UCLA C.R.T. Forward. (2023). Tracking the attack on critical race theory [Report]. UCLA School of Law. https://crtforward.law.ucla.edu
• Young, M. (1958). The rise of the meritocracy. Thames and Hudson.

Modification History

File Created:  04/23/2025

Last Modified:  04/23/2025