A fascinating discussion was recently published, involving Richard Delgado, Aja Martinez, and Victor Ray, all of whom have written about critical race theory.
Richard Delgado coordinated the conversation.
It begins:
Three authors of books out on Critical Race Theory—Richard Delgado, Aja Martinez, and Victor Ray—discuss the cultural and legal landscape in a post-2020 world. From receiving hate mail, to fielding calls to ban teaching CRT in schools, these authors’ experiences and research offers insight into current debates around teaching race in America.
*
Lit Hub: You have all recently published books about Critical Race Theory. Right around the time your books came out, white nationalists responded to calls by the previous president and others to destroy the movement. Have you experienced personal backlash from anti-Crit forces on the right?
Richard Delgado: In the early years of the movement, the late eighties and early nineties, I received very little. And that which I did receive was relatively polite and scholarly, as with an article in Stanford Law Review that charged me and other race-crits with undermining rationality and the search for truth and replacing them with stories and personal reflections.
Around the time that the fourth edition of Jean’s and my book went under production, we started receiving a lot of hate mail, most of it from people who had apparently not read the book in any of its editions but knew what they thought about it because Fox News told them so. Some of the hate mail was vicious and personal. One anonymous emailer informed Jean that she was a traitor to the white race for sleeping with me.
Aja Martinez: Similar to Richard, when I was a graduate student starting out with my work as a CRT scholar with a dissertation on CRT’s storytelling methodology, counterstory, the majority of the backlash I received was from liberal academics who said one of two things: 1) “why are you studying race and racism? Obama is President”; or 2) “CRT and counterstory isn’t real/rigorous research.” That’s pretty much the steady resistance and backlash I received for the most of my career.
Everything changed in 2020. My book, Counterstory: The Rhetoric and Writing of Critical Race Theory was published in May 2020; in September, President Trump issued his “Executive order on Combating Race and Sex Stereotyping.” This ban effectively shined a national (and even international—I was asked to speak on this topic with Lithuanian Public Radio!) spotlight on CRT and in many ways placed targets on those of us who are identifiable culprits responsible for supposedly pushing CRT’s “different vision of America.” That vision (also supposedly) teaches Americans to hate America.
Please read this interesting conversation among three scholars who dared to challenge conventional wisdom and found their work at the center of a national maelstrom.

Excellent discussion that touches on many different aspects of not only CRT but other disciplines and how those areas all can interact and coalesce into broader areas of study.
LikeLike
Hurry, ban the books, or studies,
that have yet to end,
organizational whiteness,
bias, or prejudices, as if
the “shortage” of social
power is related to a
word shortage.
The strategic value is
obvious, deaf-eared
business as usual,
while the ikes of
faux news takes the
blame.
Yep, they be the
dumb ones, for sure
for sure…
LikeLike
Thanks for this interesting discussion on this very complex issue. It is a pity these researchers are being attacked by those on the far right. What extremists are doing goes far beyond the realm of having an scholarly disagreement with someone. The right literally wants to shut them down.
LikeLike
The far-right wants to make the discussion of CRT illegal. First Amendment doesn’t apply here.
LikeLike
The far-right wants to white wash everything about and in America today.
LikeLike
Scholarly ideas are lost on so many who oppose this critical theory. The next phase is mired in Class Theory which definitely needs to be studied. Too bad the worst actors will be permitted to continue harassing those who study and debate these theories.
LikeLike
Funny, racists don’t like any discussion of racism.
LikeLike
And the money-handlers and wealthy don’t like any discussion of class.
LikeLike
It is very obvious that some of the excesses of The Period of European Supremacy have given way to a more inclusive society. In my part of the country, seeing an African-looking person in one of many social circumstances would have brought a gasp not 50 years ago. So we are better off now in so many ways.
It should not surprise anyone that there are persistent tendencies in humanity and in its social institutions that attempt to preserve an old social order that was important to a generation that could not envision equality in society. Thus ideas around which CRT attempts to explain social inequality are logically reasonable, deserving of scholarly debate. Their complexity requires that this debate take place among people who are well-read and balanced in their thinking. It is notable that commentators on this interview note that most early protests against their ideas were academic, calling into question specific ideas they put forward. They were fine with that. Then Hannah-Jones tried to put all this in perspective for the common reader. The crazies came out after that.
The 1619 was not a zany piece of writing. Like all journalists who attempt history, there were places in her writing that moved academic readers to question her interpretation of events. This is called discourse. But the furor over CRT was a deliberate propaganda effort on the part of people whose nefarious purpose was only exceeded by their trunk of money.
For me the irony of this is too rich. I picked up a copy of her book only once, and found a footnote immediately to my old professor. Hannah-Jones was not just cherry-picking radical historians (I do not believe many exist). This professor was a 70-year old lady who taught Old South, a course that studied southern history from colonial to the Civil War. She was so southern that phrases we might be sensitive to saying came off her tongue naturally. But she was a lady and an academic.
There was nothing Hannah-Jones said where she cited Dr Jennings that would have made her cringe. 1619, was good journalism.
So why did the modern conservatives go after that publication in particular? And why was it couched in the simple epithet CRT. I think the answer is easy.
LikeLike
Roy,
I’m sure you read about the guy in Jacksonville, Florida, who entered a Dollar General store and killed three Black people, then killed himself. He was a white suprenacist. His AR-15 was decorated with swastikas. Some people evolve. Others don’t. He was only 24, so he didn’t grow up in the old South. Where did he learn to hate?
LikeLike
There are legitimate historical issues with the 1619 Project apart from the explosion of enmity against it from the right.
LikeLike
Every history attracts critics, other historians with a different perspective. The critique of The 1619 Project was no different. Some historians applauded it, some criticized it. It is a powerful work.
LikeLike
Roy, I always appreciate and enjoy hearing your anecdotes and perspective.
LikeLike
Chuck: thanks. You as well
LikeLike