A Lament on Pauline Hanson’s “Ban” on Critical Race Theory (CRT)*

Stella H. Coram, July 27, 2021

*I have elected not to discuss issues of identity, or terms of reference, important though they are. Suffice to say, I allude in generalist terms to blacks, whites, and minorities as well as Aboriginal and indigenous as descriptors only.     

Australian (ultra) conservative and One Nation party leader Pauline Hanson has made a career out of attacking racial or ethnic minorities starting with Australia being “swamped by Asians” in her maiden speech to the Australian Parliament in 1996 (Sydney Morning Herald, 2016). She holds herself out as speaking for the “silent majority” of Australians, who are “sick and tired” of the left’s pandering to underserving minorities – the beneficiaries of endless government handouts. Hanson predictably has turned her attention to racial discrimination legislation to claim it is discriminatory. This is a lady, who got excited about the prospect of One Nation receiving funding from the US pro-gun lobby, the NRA (Karp, 2019). She beats a drum that does not exist. She is a scaremonger.

For Hanson, mainstream (white) Australia is under siege. White Australians are being unfairly attacked for their perceived privilege and are therefore unfairly blamed for the ills of minorities. She is on a mission with counter catchcries “it’s okay to be white” and “white lives matter too”, the latter to repudiate the ‘Black Lives Matter’ (BLM) protest. She is not interested in history – Australia or otherwise. It is of little consequence that the genesis for BLM is the long history of African American men, especially, dying at the hands of police but precipitated by a police officer fatally subduing George Floyd with a knee in the back of his neck on May 25, 2020.

Her latest stoush is over Critical Race Theory (CRT). Knowles (2021) reports in the National Indigenous Times (June 23) that the Coalition supported Hanson’s motion in the Senate 30 to 28 votes to “ban”, later amended to “reject”, CRT. Labour and the Greens did not support the motion. Her mission on this occasion is to defend Australia’s vulnerable children from being ‘swamped’ again, this time by CRT. Hanson has no expertise in education so I have little clue as to why anyone would listen to her. I suppose it is because she holds public office.

Hanson rails at Aussie kids being exposed to leftist ideology. They are unfairly shamed simply for being white and are having to confront racial hatred expressed in athletes “taking a knee” to protest black oppression. She conflates CRT with leftist protest movements, which it is not always the case. CRT may be sympathetic to the cause but less so the method of protest particularly when this involves some form of attack. CRT is ‘critical’ so as to establish the importance for examining what it is meant by race and racism beyond what is taken for granted.

Whites are the new victims of racism, which Hanson attributes to leftist critics for falsely raising the spectre of racism when it simply does not exist. For Hanson, critics are the “racists”. That would include me. It is not that black people enjoy talking about racism – the opposite could not be more-true given the inevitable blowback that comes from speaking out – the problem is that there is a problem, a long enduring one that won’t go away, that has to be talked about. The prospect for change can only come from speech. Of course, what type of speech chosen to distress are critical to communicating what it is that ought to be said. Given that Pauline Hanson has denounced CRT as a danger to Australian students, in teaching hatred of whites, a good place for me to start is to declare that I am persuaded by CRT and that I draw on CRT to make the case it is not the devil incarnate. If anything, it is an important tool for explaining why she is off the mark.

Hanson would be pleased if lefties were to stop bleating about racism. For ‘denialists’, who refuse to acknowledge the realities of racism, we are the racists for bringing it up. We are the ones who see and treat people differently on the basis of race. Only racists see race, which for denialists amounts to racism. Thus, to see whiteness is racism. This is indicative that it has been inverted simplistically into black prejudice of whites, the effect of which is to disregard centuries of entrenched discrimination: the nuts and bolts of Hanson ideology of race and racism.

Whilst Hanson is quick to ridicule CRT, nowhere have I seen reference to CRT scholars, especially in education, in her denunciations. I doubt that she has engaged with CRT scholarship in order to form an informed view of it. This may explain in part why Hanson misrepresents CRT particularly in terms of what it stands for. Hanson once infamously asked back in the early days of her career to “please explain” in reference to the meaning of xenophobia. I daresay that she is unlikely to repeat this in reference to CRT because she would not be interested in the answer.

Not only does she, and her ilk, ignore the tenets of CRT but also its origins – its reasons for coming to prominence in the first place. That is, namely, to try to explain the persistence of racial disparity despite decades of liberal reform. Contrary to her assertion that CRT promotes racism, missing the point altogether, CRT concludes that racism is not an aberration, it is ordinary (normal even) to the extent that it is so embedded within society to be invisible. This is why it is hard to see and this is why it is hard to get rid of racism.

Far from being an attack on mainstream (white) society, as Hanson claims, I read CRT as a lament on the limits of civil rights (in the US) to cut through entrenched inequality so as to afford meaningful (long term) change. In other words, CRT seeks to understand, and to then explain why despite decades of liberal reform racial disparities persist across the social and economic spectrum in terms of education, employment, law, housing, health and life expectancy and so on.

The Salience of Generic Disregard

We see it [racism] everywhere, but rarely does anyone stop to say what it is, or to explain what is wrong with it (Appiah 1990: 3).

It is not easy to articulate experience of racism because it impacts profoundly. This demands of the speaker objective articulation of subjective experience often to a potentially hostile audience. People of colour would prefer not to have to explain racism (over and over) but until such time as mainstream society listens with open minds and hearts, the need for such talk is undiminished. Conversely, such unwanted talk would subside once substantive structural measures were established to overturn racial inequalities.

Responding to Appiah, I refer to Patricia Williams’ (1992) notion of generic disregard to explain the persistence of racism. Private racisms perpetuate harm, which she calls “spirit murder”. Racism thus is “generic disregard for others whose lives are qualitatively dependent on regard” (Williams 1992: 73). This is about neglect, turning a blind eye, not doing something when something ought to be done in contrast to convention in which racism is measured by an intent to discriminate. Taylor (2004) elaborates on this to elucidate the assumption of racism being always intentional. “Disregard means the withholding of respect, concern, goodwill, or care from members of a race” (Taylor 2004: 32). It covers a range of attitudes from outright hatred to the simple failure to notice that someone is suffering (Taylor 2004: 33).

Contrary to Appiah, not everything is about race. Screaming headlines in mainstream media, keep race and racism high on the agenda but at the cost of not differentiating between matters that matter and those that don’t. Racism is readily dismissed when it matters most such as in the case of black deaths in custody or is held to scrutiny when it ought to be dismissed. I wade into muddy waters here to argue that Meghan Markle, the Duchess of Sussex, pulled a ‘swifty’ to claim racism by a royal questioning the colour of her yet to be baby son’s skin. I understand she took offence but the remark could have been benign. In my extended family, mixed marriages are common including my own. We have all at some time pondered the skin colour of a baby to be born – whether it will be dark or fair – without this being racial in tone. I get that the British royal family is white and how this might potentially be ‘tainted’ with a dark-skinned baby. If that was the case, the Queen could hardly have approved Markle’s marriage to her grandson Harry in the first place.

Invisibility of Race and Racism

CRT’s starting point is that racism is “normal, not aberrant, to the fabric of social order” (Delgado, 1995, p. xiv). It does not stand out and is therefore unremarkable. Inability to see race means that only extreme forms are recognised (Delgado and Stefancic, 2001: 22). CRT seeks to expose the permutations of hidden racism that go unnoticed as much as the big stuff. This is indicative of racism being a social dynamic that captures conduct ranging from prejudice to monumental oppression. Allport (1954) developed a five-point scale of racial prejudice to name bias on the soft end of the scale to genocide at the extreme end of the scale.

Inability to see racism is described as colour-blind racism. Bonilla-Silva (2006: 2) writes that “whites claim race is no longer relevant yet racial inequality persists, a contradiction between colour blindness and colour-coded inequality”. “They (whites) have developed powerful explanations for justifying racial inequality that exculpate them from any responsibility” (Bonilla-Silva 2006: 2). Colour blind racism consists of practices that are subtle, institutional and race-neutral. Thus, inequalities are maintained no longer by overt discrimination but rather through fictions of distance and neutrality (Bonilla-Silva 2006:3).

Racism is pervasive. It does not need to be enacted, or acted upon, it is just there – at times, an unconscious reference point for conduct, or lack of, predisposed on social values. This is not a matter of good citizens behaving in ways that are overtly discriminatory but that reasonings kick in, which work in effect to reaffirm the status quo. In the context of applying for a position, the rationalisation for a suitable candidate not being successful can come down to: he/she presented well, it’s just that they are not quite ready for the position…” and so it goes. Even when there is a break-through into an organisation, it is not necessarily that this includes access to the power structures where decisions are made. Inclusion comes with a caveat. Behave, or the institution will invoke the rule book to put an ‘ungrateful’ back in his or her place. ‘Be the good, happy and or grateful black’. This is hardly played out in the public domain but reflects nonetheless the lived experience of minorities including myself. CRT scholar Derrick Bell (1992) decried racism a permanent fixture of American life alongside, fair to say, other fixtures gender, sexuality, or class.

Race Formations and the Changing Significance of Race

Omi and Winant (2002) pioneered race formations theory to explain the changing significance of race. Race formations take into account the structural arrangements of society and the social dimensions of experience. They argue it is important to think of race (and by implication racism) as an element of social structure rather than as an irregularity within it (Omi and Winant, 2002: 124). Structural arrangements underscore the maintenance of unjust systems (hegemony) and the social dimension to human experience. Put simply, individual experience occurs within a particular social and political context. The task then would be to see how this applies to Hanson-ism.

CRT refutes the notion of race as a biological entity to instead proffer race a social construct by which meanings (values) are attributed to categories of body types. These meanings have historically been overtly discriminatory but are less so now. That does not mean to say they no longer exist rather that they shift to adopt a neutral veneer making it difficult to identify.

In my examination of the booing of Australian indigenous athlete, Adam Goodes, I argued that racial animosity expressed in booing Goodes was overlaid by justifications of neutrality. He was booed because spectators claimed that they “did not like the man, which had nothing to do with his race”. But what they really did not like about the man was his refusal to tolerate racial abuse on the field and his celebrations of his culture (Coram, 2016; Coram and Hallinan, 2017). Back in the 1990s, racial vilification of indigenous athletes was unapologetically out there whereas in the present it is masked by “booing”. Discourses of race may be changing but not necessarily for the better. It is in this context that CRT emphasises examination of the changing significance of race.

It is no longer acceptable to label African Americans “negroes” but that does not mean that they are no longer regarded as subhuman – “niggers” – their continued mistreatment though is illustrative of this. Blacks, nowadays, are more likely to be celebrated for their contribution to society an example of which is the racial stereotype of black innate sporting prowess. Superficially positive, this represents a form of liberal racism, in wanting to say something good about blacks, since prowess is attributed to the physical body and not the brain. Natural black intellect has not made it to the table yet since superior intellect is the domain of whites. In any case, compliment of prowess is about granting concession to blacks, an exemplar of society as meritocratic.

The inclusion of blacks in sport has shown that intolerance is not far away. It seems that just about every time a black athlete makes a mistake the headlines sink into racialisation. Black athletes may be celebrated for their achievements in sport so long as they do the miracle stuff. If not their grip on acceptance becomes very slippery indeed as three black British soccer players found during the recent playoff for an international with Italy when they missed their penalty shots. They were subject to a barrage of racist abuse (Robinson, 2021). Closer to home, Australian indigenous athletes face similar backlash should they be deemed to have cost a game for making a mistake. This kind of carry on persists despite leagues celebrating the contribution of indigenous athletes to their respective codes. All superficial, and mostly welcome, but nothing meaningful.

Racism, much like race, is also misunderstood. It is uncritically assumed to be confined to the domain of the ignorant individual ‘racist’, whose conduct is reprehensible, namely in the form of racial vilification. This is about overt racism, which can be observed and not the covert subtle hidden away stuff that is much harder to recognise. An example of which is when jokes are shared in seemingly harmless setting but almost always at the expense of the dignity of another, usually, the ‘other’. Without structures in place to identify this there is hardly any means for redress that then require the racialized person to just ‘deal’. There is no recourse.

Vilification is but one form of racism. To limit racism to this overlooks the spectrum of historical racialisation from slavery, apartheid, and lynching to contemporary stuff composed of bias, bigotry, stereotyping, and plain unremarkable mistreatment. The unambiguous construct of racial discrimination as institutional, common in literature of the 1990s, has been largely supplanted by tidier, less confrontational labels such as “disadvantage”. The purpose here is twofold: to imply that racism no longer exists but if and where it does this has more to do with unfortunate disadvantage, to be remedied by the provision of advantage. Linked to advantage is the policy of inclusion so as to mitigate the effects of exclusion. This ought not be problematic. However, as critical scholars point out, inclusion can be restrictive, subject to the invoking of exclusion.

The construct of the ‘racist’ let society off the hook. Only individuals can be “racist” but not society and certainly not institutions. It is too easy to direct the ignorant individual to educational awareness on the wrongfulness of racial bias rather than question the place of society in creating the “racist” in the first place. Rarely explained, it is essential to consider what is meant by the ‘racist’. To begin with, it opens the door to denial because it is steeped in shame to the extent that no one could possibly be bound to declare themselves ‘racist’. It brings out the indignant rise in the ‘racist’ to deny. Secondly, it assumes that the ‘racist’ is permanent or fixed state but this overlooks the social dynamic of racism to be enacted or not acted upon. Labels may be discarded in step with racial awareness but this does not guarantee that assumptions about race are diminished. This is in part why CRT attends to the changing significance of race and racism.

Racial discrimination, or racism, is taken to be intentional. But this ignores, as CRT scholars point out, that racism can occur by omission. This is about racism of neglect arising out of not doing anything. To not address housing, which, as is well documented, equates with good health, or lack of. To not protect a person from persecution in the legal fraternity. To not permit a child to attend a school or college. Patricia Williams described this eloquently in her ground breaking book Alchemy of Race, as racism by generic disregard. Nothing to do with intent.

Limits of Liberalism

Derrick Bell is credited with developing critical race theory in response to his concern that decades of liberalism in policy have not delivered equality for blacks. The pace of change is slow. He sought an alternative perspective to civil rights and Critical Legal Studies (CLS), which he saw as having erred in not referring to racism. He agreed with reference to Gramsci’s notion of “hegemony” to explain how oppression is maintained, since the oppressed concede because they have no means to object. He also agreed with its critique of legal orthodoxy for assuming the US is meritocratic. Where he departed though from CLS was in its failure to include racism in its critique.

Civil rights ascribe to white folk working alongside members of the African American community to achieve equal rights in law through incremental steps. CLS, similarly, views change through incremental legislative process. Yes. But incrementalism is not enough. Crenshaw (1988:1334) argues that the liberal perspective of the “civil rights crusade as a long, slow, but always upward pull” is flawed not just because it fails to recognise the limits of legal paradigms to serve as catalysts for change but also because of its emphasis on incrementalism. Sweeping change is needed but liberalism has no mechanism for this. Radical change is needed because without fundamental change, the status quo will inevitably reassert itself. Ground breaking legislation will be repealed.

For Bell, legal frameworks do not do justice to the anguish of coloured folk. The law is dispassionate and does not account for the experience of racialisation. Accordingly, CRT draws on storytelling to highlight the lived experience of racism that the language of law tends to overlook. The objective of storytelling is to unearth the silences of race and racism through analysis of the “myths, presuppositions, and received wisdoms making up common culture about race that serves to render blacks and other minorities one-down” (Delgado, 1995: xiv). CRT theorists “integrate their experiential knowledge, drawn from a shared history as the ‘other’ with their struggles to “transform a world deteriorating under the albatross of racial hegemony” (Barnes, 1990:1864-1865). In this context, examining the experience of oppression – whether of race, ethnicity, gender or class – underscore the development of an important analytic standpoint.

CRT must answer to criticism of liberalism, from the right, in particular that resources and benefits have unfairly favoured minorities at the expense of the mainstream. CRT argues in response that whites have been primary beneficiaries of civil rights especially white women of affirmative action policies. It is curious that minorities have copped a bucket of criticism. They are ‘undeserving’, they take too much of the share in the public purse pie, and jump the queue into competitive appointments. Yet, there is no objection to white women enjoying transitional pathways to promotion in education, for example. CRT makes the qualification that affirmative action is about the provision of opportunity and not necessarily the assurance of opportunity. Thus, Delgado and Stefancic (2001: 23) distinguish between equality of opportunity and equality of results.

CRT bemoans that achieving racial equality requires in kind some form of recompense. Derrick Bell refers to this as “interest convergence theory” where the interests of blacks converge with the interests of white society. This is problematic because it requires whites relinquish some of their privilege, which is unlikely. In other words, undoing institutional harm cannot occur if it means that this will cause harm for those who might be called upon to relinquish resources or privilege.

CRT cuts across disciplines. It started out in law but has been utilised in other disciplines including education, social policy, labour market and sport. In terms of education policy, Ladson-Billings (1995) asks questions about how it is formulated. Who is asked to serve on committees and task forces that formulate policy?

CRT examines the ways racism is rendered invisible in the curriculum. It sets out to unearth the omissions, distortions, and lies plaguing the field. Nods to diversity in textbooks represent what King (1995: 274) calls “marginalizing knowledge”. This is revealed in textbooks “featuring” people of colour. The feature component is troubling because it treats such content as ‘add-on’ that leave monocultural narrative undisturbed. Minorites do not require featuring but rather acceptance. Toni Morrison (1992) urges the “deciphering of text”. This is about the importance of examining not just what is present but also to ask direct questions about what is missing.

Kevin Hylton (2005: 94), writing in sport, argues that mainstream writers and practitioners have hidden behind dominant ideologies of objectivity, meritocracy colour-blindness, race-neutrality and equal opportunity in policy. The challenge is for these orthodoxies to be contested in a more sustained way than they have been. I have drawn on CRT to highlight the changing significance or ace and racism (Coram, 2015), the paradox of liberalism (Coram, 2016), and the relevance of racial neutrality to denial (Coram and Hallinan, 2017).

CRT is far from perfect something, which its scholars readily concede to. This does not diminish what it sets out to do, which is to:

  • Question social structure and society – the workings of institution.
  • Question liberalism, such as meritocracy, to understand why after decades of liberalism racial inequalities persist.
  • Refute race as a biological entity to frame it instead as a social construct.
  • Draw on storytelling to bring to light the subjective experience of racism – a counter to the rigidities of objectivity in terms of reason and rationale.

Bearing in mind that race is a social construct with “material effects on people” (Ladson-Billings, 2003) the task then is to identify the normative (though silenced) realities of race and the consequences of this for privileging one over another. Before turning back to Hanson, I refer to Luke Pearson and Natalie Cromb’s excellent rebuttal of Hanson entitled “Critical race theory – what isn’t it?” published June 18 2021 on their website IndigenousX.

CRT has nothing to do with ‘wokeness’ or ‘cancel culture’ though it is likely sympathetic to the origins of both movements with caveats. It would without doubt question right wing ideologies but through reasoned argument compared to attack. It is a discipline more than a movement and certainly not a ramshackle reactive protest. Of course, the onus for decency always falls unfairly on the oppressed to ‘rise above it’ by adhering to constructive debate and by engaging in self-reflection: and to be open to the possibility that not all criticism is necessarily motivated by race.

CRT has nothing to do with whipping up black hatred of privileged whites – as a call to arms – for blacks to rise up. This is a fabrication by ideologues to generate misplaced fear.

It has nothing to do with the biology of race in terms of blackness or black superiority – again, more fabrication. Race, instead, as has been pointed out is a social construct. Categories of racial typology are assigned to bodies that are then subject to differential treatment, accordingly.

CRT does not advocate any kind of violence. It does not invoke race hatred – specifically hatred of whites – and it most certainly does not espouse black racial superiority. It is not about inverting the wheel of fortune to the advantage of blacks and to the detriment of whites. It is about disrupting old hierarchies embedded within institutions to install openness and transparency.

CRT does not see itself as perfect and is open to criticism. Nonetheless, the task always is to unpack the silences that shape cultural and political understandings of the ‘other’. For instance, in the context of education, CRT appreciates the urgency for addressing the disconnect between life of the classroom and the lives of the students outside of school (Ladson-Billings, 2003). CRT is not in the curriculum but may be crucial to unpacking the silences of the (hidden) curriculum.

Appealing to the Arch Right…

Hanson appeals to a rightist cohort. She cuts through in appealing to the lowest common denominator – self-interest. She indulges in scare mongering to sound the alarm on the latest bogey to bedevil Australia. Her defence is to smash criticism. She, in turn, is utterly intolerant of any criticism. It is clear that she has not engaged with CRT and is not open to what it is trying to say.

I am prepared to concede though she is in the ball park in her criticism of CRT for asserting “society as racist” but with the caveat that without context, she misses the point. CRT does not set out to throws stones at whites in its lament (as I put it) that racism is a permanent trait within society. If anything, this is an expression of despair since despite decades of liberal reform racism is ever present. It does not have to be, and ought not to be, permanent in other words.

She does not get that racism is informal. It requires little formality since it may function of its own accord through seemingly objective rationality. For example, meritocracy treats everyone equally. But some are more equal than others. Merit is evaluated subjectively rather than objectively. Equal opportunity allows for a broader pool of candidates, to include “diversity”, yet numerous studies have found that bias underscores the determination of merit – the marker for who gets the job – and importantly the suitability of a candidate to “fit”. Objectivity of merit can exclude as much as good old-fashioned discrimination.

Hanson and et al misunderstand the purpose of education and educational institutions. They are not intended, or ought not to be, as safe havens for intellectual dogma including narrow readings of history to teach only the uplifting stuff. Hanson’s irrational fear is that Australian students are being indoctrinated. This is a mockery of the purpose of education in its truest sense. Learning is not about being susceptible to ideology. It is instead about developing the skills of reasoned and independent thinking – to be able to understand a text and to deconstruct, or identify, not only its meanings but also any shortcomings. That would apply necessarily to critical race theory as much as to the works of venerated conservative Australian historian Geoffrey Blainey. What Hanson and all, in essence, seek to do is influence what is being taught and by proxy to control what students think. To think for them and for students to not to have to engage in critical thought. The consequence of this would be a generation of zombies.

It’s a deceptive argument because it deploys concern for the minds of vulnerable impressionable learners to justify shielding them from the evils of leftist doctrine. If exposed to the brutalities of Aboriginal history, Hanson imagines that (white) students would be ‘at risk’ of becoming ashamed about their ancestry. Hence, the counter to this, to restore balance, is to impose nationalist curriculum benchmarking Australian history and for students to rise in pride accordingly.

The question is not one or the other, in terms of what history to teach – white or black – but to address Australian history in its fullness – warts and all. This lends itself to an environment where students discover, or confront where need be, history for themselves. This is when history enriches not bludgeon with a fantasy of pioneers. A refusal to engage with Aboriginal history culture and society, speaks to a profound problem. To be open to history, for example, does not diminish. If anything, it does the opposite by opening the door to greater understanding and acknowledgment. Courage is needed here to take such a leap of faith. To do anything less, is to render truth the sacrificial lamb to myth making and denialism.

Portuguese intellectual Paulo Freire argued in his ground breaking book Pedagogy of the Oppressed, translated into English in 1970, that only through the provision of education can the oppressed regain their humanity and take their place fully in society. Cultural critic, bell hooks, similarly in her break through study Teaching to Transgress (1994) equates education with the very practice of freedom. They are one and the same. She upholds the principle of teaching to change – the antithesis of indoctrination which is about preserving, and or restoring, the status quo.

Pauline Hanson is a sceptic. She does not trust that students can decipher stuff for themselves. She rejects change in terms of teaching practise and curriculum designed to embed new understandings of society and people: how the former contributes to making of the latter. This is more than liberalism of incremental steps to mitigate the damages of bias and prejudice. It is the study of society. National curriculum is not necessarily problematic so long as it is understood that this does not disrupt the structures under which inequities arise in the first place. Structural change is essential to ensure that the ‘other’ are not add-ons to society but are centrally located within.

Unmasking Hanson-ite Falsehoods of ‘Reverse’ Racism and the ‘Racist’

I have not drawn explicitly on storytelling to develop this essay though I propose that in writing this essay, it is in many respects a telling of my story.

Too often, race and racism are taken for granted as fact without examination of what is meant by race and racism. It is to this that CRT comes into its own. Race is a social not a biological construct by which meanings, typically uncharitable, are ascribed to body typologies with adverse effects. In the good old days, racism was out there with no need to hide it. Now it is subtle to the point of not being recognisable. This is the crucial site that CRT hones in on to draw out the imputations of race underpinning institutional neglect or of discrimination masquerading as objectivity to exclude. It is to the institution, in particular, that CRT questions liberalism for achieving equality.

There are two parts to this: firstly, to stake one’s claim on what is meant by race and racism and secondly to unmask the falsities of race and racism, the taken for granted. Hylton (2005) refers to uncovering the orthodoxies of race. The orthodoxies underpinning Hanson ideology of race and racism are such that:

  • Racism is treating people differently on the basis of race.
  • Racism is the intention to discriminate against people on the basis of race.
  • Racism does not exist except for antiwhite racism – reverse racism – and the oddball ‘racist’.
  • Those who see race are the “racists”.

There is no introspection, only outward attack. Pauline Hanson is the post-racial warrior, defender of mainstream (white) Australia. She truncates everything into a single theme – one of black hatred of whites to explain all that ails Australian society. The new racism, if there is to be any such thing, is anti-white racism. She attacks critical race theory (CRT) because in her narrow view of the world it seeks to perpetuate a massive lie about Australia, as “racist” when all she wants is for bleating minorities to ‘get over it and move on’. Easy for her to say being a beneficiary of white privilege. She did not have to relinquish her ancestral lands or culture to make way for European colonials. Easy for her to think, too, that since she has not racially discriminated against an Aboriginal person, personally, she cannot be ‘racist’. There is no ‘racist’, only racism. Her modus is virulent and vicious attack in the Australian parliament to sanctify utterance of outrageous falsehoods about Aboriginal peoples and other minorities to deny them justice. She rationalises her loathing of the vocal left on the basis of concern for the ‘quiet’ Australians, who miss out. She is the master of inversion.

The unjustifiable fear for Hanson is that if CRT is allowed to run in Australian schools and universities, to tell an alternative story of Australian history, this will do untold damage to the delicate impressionable minds of students. They will be infected with shame. The problem is that she injects her bias to potentially deny students the right to think for themselves. To be their own agents for change. This is the passport to freedom of which CRT dares to show the way for all, regardless of race. To not see this and not act, accordingly, is the measure of generic disregard.

References

Allport, G. (1954) The Nature of Prejudice, Addison-Wesley.

Appiah, K. (1990) ‘Racisms’ in David Goldberg (ed) Anatomy of Racism, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, 3-17.

Barnes, R. (1990) Race consciousness: The thematic content of racial distinctiveness in critical race scholarship, Harvard Law Review, 103, 1864-1871.

Bell, D. (1992) Faces at the Bottom of the Well, New York: Basic Books.

Coram, S. and Hallinan, C. (2017) Critical race theory and the orthodoxy of racial neutrality: examining the denigration of Adam Goodes”, Australian Aboriginal Studies: Journal of the Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies, No. 1:  99-111.

Coram, S. (2016) “‘Alchemy’ of rights and racism: A critical reading of the booing of Adam Goodes”, Journal of Australian Indigenous Issues, Vol 19, no 4: 42-57.

Coram, S. (2015) The Real and the Unreal: Hyper Narratives of Indigenous Athletes and the Changing Significance of Race, Second Edition, Illinois: Common Ground.

Crenshaw, K. (1988) Race, reform, and retrenchment: Transformation and legitimation in antidiscrimination law, Harvard Law Review, 101, 1331-1387.

Delgado, R. (Ed) (1995) Critical Race Theory: The Cutting Edge, Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.

Delgado, R. and Stefancic, J. (2001) Critical Race Theory: An Introduction, New York: New York University Press.

Freire, P. (1970) Pedagogy of the Oppressed,

Garcia, J. (1996) ‘The heart of racism’, Journal of Social Philosophy, 27 (1): 5-45.

Gramsci, A. (1971) Selections from the prison notebooks, Q. Hoare & G. Smith (eds. & trans.) New York: International Publishers.

hooks, b. (1994) Teaching to Transgress: Education as the Practice of Freedom, London: Taylor & Francis.

Hylton, K. (2005) ‘Race, sport and leisure: lessons from critical race theory’, Leisure Studies 24 (1): 81-98.

Karp, P. (2019) “One nation’s James Ashby filmed seeking $20m from NRA to weaken Australia’s gun laws”, The Guardian, March 26, www.theguardian.com.

King, J. (1995) Culture-centred knowledge: Black studies, curriculum transformation, and social action, in J. Banks & C. Banks (eds.), Handbook of research on multicultural education, New York: Macmillan, pp. 265-90.

Knowles, R. (2021) “Coalition supports Pauline Hanson’s motion to ban critical race theory”, National Indigenous Times, June 23, www.nit.com.au.

Ladson-Billings, G. (2003) “’Lies my teacher still tells’: Developing a critical race perspective toward the social studies”, Critical Race Theory Perspectives on the Social Studies: The Profession, Policies, and Curriculum, Information Age Publishing, p.1-11.

Morrison, T. (1992) Playing in the Dark: Whiteness and the Literary Imagination, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Omi, M. and Winant, H. (2002) ‘Racial formation’, in P. Essed and D. Goldberg (eds.) Race Critical Theories: Text and Context, Oxford: Blackwell Publishers: 123-45.

Pearson, L. and Cromb, N. (2021) “is not”, Indigenous X, June 21, 2021.

Robinson, J. (2021) “England soccer players face racist abuse after Italy defeat”, The Wall Street Journal, July 12, www.wsj.com.

Sydney Morning Herald (2016), “Pauline Hanson’s 1996 maiden speech to parliament: full transcript”, Sept 15, www.smh.com.au.

Taylor, P. (2004) Race: A Philosophical Introduction, Cambridge: Polity Press.

Williams, P. (1992) The Alchemy of Race and Rights: Diary of a Law Professor, Cambridge Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.