by Mitch Kokai
Senior Political Analyst, John Locke Foundation
Over the weekend, The Washington Post joined the Christopher Rufo smear campaign. He’s a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute who has become the face of public opposition to critical race theory. The article’s misrepresentations led to a story “clarification” that doesn’t go far enough.
The article, written by “reporters” Laura Meckler and Josh Dawsey, is predictable and appalling in its failure to accurately define critical race theory and how Rufo has exposed it.
WaPo’s piece is a part of the left’s response to stinging critiques of the open racism embodied in critical race theory, which has led to Rufo and others being targeted in The Atlantic, The New York Times, NBC News, and on MSNBC and CNN. But in terms of how this report ranks on language manipulation and aversion to truth, Meckler and Dawsey’s article might very well top the bunch.
Before getting into the meat of the half-cooked smear, Meckler and Dawsey propose an insufficient definition of critical race theory (CRT).
“Rufo alleged that efforts to inject awareness of systemic racism and White privilege, which grew more popular following the murder of George Floyd by police, posed a grave threat to the nation …Conservatives say analyzing these issues through a racial lens is, in and of itself, racist.”
This is an inadequate descriptor for the movement that is overhauling American institutions. CRT does incorporate the idea of systemic racism, but is far more radical than employing a “racial lens.”
The writers skim over the reality that the left takes things a step further, communicating through the neo-Marxist ideology that white people are implicitly racist based on the skin color they were born into, and that those who do not submit to “antiracist” “equity” dogma are racist. This is yet another example of the left’s progressive-or-bigot binary.