Critical Race Theory (CRT) is over three decades old, yet an adequate definition remains elusive. CRT has been variously described as "the view that the law and legal institutions are inherently racist and that race itself . . . is a socially constructed concept . . . used by white people to further their economic and political interests at the expense of people of colour," "a collection of people struggling inside and outside legal scholarship . . . [to] build[] a movement to eliminate racial oppression," and "radical multiculturalism."
Although CRT is difficult to define, there are several views that unite most Critical Race Theorists: “racism is ordinary” and not an aberration; racial minorities have only made gains when their interests have converged with the interests of the white elite (“dominant society”); race is socially constructed; dominant society “racializes different minority groups at different times;” identity is intersectional and nonessential, i.e., each individual “has potentially conflicting, overlapping identities, loyalties, and allegiances;” and people of color have “unique perspectives” that can be used to “assess law’s master narratives” through “legal storytelling.” See Richard Delgado & Jean Stefancic, Critical Race Theory: An Introduction 8–11 (3d ed. 2017).
While CRT has been the subject of much controversy both inside and outside the legal academy, it has been profoundly influential. CRT has not only shaped the discourses of several other disciplines but fermented a number of submovements, e.g., Critical Race Feminism, LatCrit, Tribal Crit, Asian American Jurisprudence, Queer Crit, OutCrit, Critical White Studies, ClassCrit, DisCrit, and Critical Legal Research. Indeed, it remains an important lens for understanding how concepts of race have shaped the law.
