Public Opinion Toward Critical Race Theory in Academia, Legislation, and Name

Political wrangling over Critical Race Theory (CRT) in the United States has produced policies banning its teaching in jurisdictions across the country. However, laws touted as “anti-CRT” have little in common with the original, academic origins of the phrase. In this study, we use a Qualtrics-based...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Journal of race, ethnicity, and politics ethnicity, and politics, 2024-10, p.1-18
Main Authors: Giersch, Jason, Liebertz, Scott, Duquette, Breanna, Yao-Kouame, Koffi
Format: Article
Language:English
Citations: Items that this one cites
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Political wrangling over Critical Race Theory (CRT) in the United States has produced policies banning its teaching in jurisdictions across the country. However, laws touted as “anti-CRT” have little in common with the original, academic origins of the phrase. In this study, we use a Qualtrics-based survey experiment to assess how participants’ support for a ban will change depending on whether the ban reflects core tenets of academic researchers’ use of CRT, the phrase itself, or elements common to many of the laws intended to ban it. We find that these three different frames do indeed change support for such policies, and the effects are dependent upon partisanship. We interpret our results to be empirical evidence of the phrase “Critical Race Theory” complicating political discourse.
ISSN:2056-6085
2056-6085
DOI:10.1017/rep.2024.13