Exposing the logical fallacies of CRT

Some CRT activists propose penalizing white students because of their white privilege, given that “racial discrimination is not inherently racist,” as Kendi has argued. Other CRT writers have suggested “campus speech codes,” “tort remedies for racist speech,” and “economic boycotts” against businesses that are not minority owned or fail to align with CRT ideology. The stakes are high, as underscored by Kendi’s Manichean rhetoric: “One either allows racial inequities to persevere, as a racist, or confronts racial inequities, as an antiracist.”

In response, Feser observes that CRT is “essentially a reformulation of some of the main themes of Marxism and postmodernism in racial terms.” He cites, for example, the Marxist trope that anyone who opposes communism must be fascist. He writes:

It is simply a matter of elementary logic that the truth of a claim, and the contingency of an argument, stand or fall completely independently of the character or interests of the person making it, its historical or cultural origins, the context in which it is made, and any other such considerations.

That presents a problem for Kendi and company, given that most of their claims are based on various logical fallacies, particularly ad hominem and poisoning the well. “The general problem with ad hominem fallacies… is that they simply change the subject,” says Feser.