MarkFord
What’s Wrong With the Thinking Behind Intersectionality Theories?
One thing you can’t deny about Critical Race Theory and other intersectionality theories is that they share a seductively simple logic. You begin with a premise that sounds sort of correct. You are asked: Do you accept that? If you say, no, you are disqualified from any further conversation. If you say yes, you are logically bound to accept every absurd claim that derives from it.
For example, here is the logic of Critical Race Theory as expressed by Ibram Kendi in his bestseller How to Be an Anti-Racist:
* Blacks and Whites are created equal. One race is not better than the other.
* And yet, when it comes to wealth, income, education, and other measures of social prestige, Blacks rank considerably lower than Whites.
* Since, as we agreed, Blacks and Whites are equal, the only possible explanation for these disproportionalities (differences measured in terms of percentage of population) is intrinsic/institutional racism.
That was the logic behind a change in the law in Seattle recently, when a study showed that Black bike riders were disproportionally cited for not wearing helmets.
The study did not ask, “Do Blacks ride bicycles without helmets more often than Whites?” Because – given the fact that we are equal and should expect equal outcomes in all metrics – such a question would be racist.
Seattle’s solution? Rescind the law.
As a sort-of Libertarian (to borrow a phrase from P.J. O’Rourke), I wholeheartedly approve of the rescission. But not the logic.
