This morning, CNN host Soledad O’Brien, clearly still stung by her interview beclowning at the hands of Breitbart.com editor-in-chief Joel Pollak, decided to have on her program Emory University Professor of Law Dorothy Brown to shill for Critical Race Theory (CRT). Here’s what Brown had to say:
Critical Race Theory seeks to explain judicial decisions by asking the question what does race have to do with it … it looks at race in America … It’s nothing about white supremacy. When I hear “white supremacy” I think of the Ku Klux Klan. Critical Race Theory is the opposite of that. So honestly, I have no idea what he was talking about.
Hilariously, Soledad then refers to the Wikipedia entry on CRT – the same entry she likely referred to during the original interview — and stated that the definition has been changed 82 times. She says she hasn’t changed the Wikipedia entry; then she asks if Brown is surprised that there’s been parsing. Brown admits that there are varying interpretations of CRT, but says that everyone agrees it’s not about white supremacy. Fair enough, right?
Although CRT does not employ a single methodology, it seeks to highlight the ways in which the law is not neutral and objective, but designed to support White supremacy and the subordination of people of color.
In other words, the precise opposite of what Brown said on CNN. So CNN was trying to mislead its viewers to protect Obama?! Say it ain’t so, Soledad!
Brown goes on to say that Professor Derrick Bell wouldn’t say that Brown v. Board of Education was a sham. Except, of course, that Professor Bell said that Brown v. Board is a sham designed to help white America in the Cold War:
Brown was not a revolutionary decision. Rather, it is the defini- tive example that the interest of blacks in achieving racial justice is accommodated only when and for so long as policymakers find that the interest of blacks converges with the political and economic in- terests of whites. Black people have been challenging segregation in the public schools since 1850 — for the most part without suc- cess. As Professor Mary Dudziak has convincingly argued, the Brown decision advanced U.S. interests because racial segregation was hampering the United States in the Cold War with communist nations and undermining U.S. efforts to combat subversion at home.
Despite Soledad’s impressive academic legal record on CRT to this point, she continues her assault on truth. She cites one of my pieces and asks Brown whether the footprint of CRT is all over the Obama Administration. Brown, doing her best to cover for Obama, denies any such footprint, stating, “I’m dumbstruck by that statement.” She shouldn’t be. She should try citing facts or refuting arguments. After all, that’s what law professors are supposed to do, isn’t it?
And, of course, Brown then attacked Joel, which is why Soledad called Brown in the first place. She suggested that all of this focus on CRT was a “smear tactic.” So at least Soledad got her money’s worth – if not in intellectual honesty, then in attack dogging.
Finally, Soledad complains that she’s on the receiving end of “crazy tweets.” “Stop tweeting me, we have moved on, people,” Soledad sums up.
Not quite, Soledad. Until she starts telling the truth rather than flacking for the President, we’re going to keep vetting the media and tweeting her to do her job.