The administration announced its intention to restrict federal funding of trainings on "Critical Race Theory" and "White Privilege," while labeling these conceptual frameworks as "anti-American." There are many researchers far more qualified than me to take up the gauntlet the administration has thrown down in announcing its new policy. But I cannot remain silent. Two of my most influential professors from courses I took over a decade ago in my doctoral program -- Dr. BeEtta Stoney and Dr. Kay Ann Taylor -- who taught me "Multicultural Curriculum Restructuring" and "Philosophy of Education" -- made sure that I understood the relevance of critical race theory and white privilege. They would expect me to do nothing less than to respond to the administration's provocative statement. The following is a pertinent section from my dissertation thesis on multicultural special education.

McCray et al. (2007) wonder “whether or not any lingering thought pattern as it relates to race relations pre-Brown (i.e., institutional racism and White privilege)...is being manifested in the wide disparities observed in the selection and placement of African American secondary school principals” (p. 250). McCray et al. explore this concern from within the context of an analytical tool, mentioned also in reference to research by Moore et al. (2008) earlier in the present study, called “Critical Race Theory” (CRT), which, according to McCray et al., “requires the acknowledgement of the role that race has played in our society.... [and] advocates policies to ensure that individuals who have been historically disenfranchised are given equal access to opportunities...in educational leadership, a field that has been overwhelmingly dominated by White men” (p. 250).

Critical Race Theory is a form of analysis that began in the study of law and, in recent decades, has been applied to education, providing a way of understanding and expressing the continuing influence of racism—especially institutional racism—on the rights, opportunities, and experiences of Americans today. “Understanding the permanence of racism is critical in examining the placement of African American principals in this designated southeastern state, because of the state's historical legacy of racism,” according to McCray et al. (2007, p. 250).

Ladson-Billings and Tate (1995) explained the importance of anecdotal evidence in using Critical Race Theory as an analytical tool. “For the critical race theorist,” they write, “social reality is constructed by the formulation and the exchange of stories about individual situations. These stories serve as interpretive structures by which we impose order on experience and it on us” (p. 57). Telling ones own story provides a path to escape and subvert rhetorical traditions which have served to oppress certain groups, according to those authors.

A second reason for the naming-one's-own-reality theme of critical race theory is the psychic preservation of marginalized groups. A factor contributing to the demoralization of marginalized groups is self-condemnation. Members of minority groups internalize the stereotypic images that certain elements of society have constructed in order to maintain their power. Historically, storytelling has been a kind of medicine to heal the wounds of pain caused by racial oppression. The story of one's condition leads to realization of how one came to be oppressed and subjugated and allows one to stop inflicting mental violence on oneself. (Ladson-Billings & Tate, 1995, p. 57)