Critical Race Theory: A Multicultural Disrupter
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsJournal Outlet: Genealogy
Manuscript Title: Critical Race Theory as Multicultural Disrupter
Reviewer Summary: This article discusses a how critical race theory (CRT)—a framework developed in the USA—can be applied to the sociological study of race-relations in Canadian contexts. The main focus of the paper involves the use of CRT to analyze and critique race-related issues unique to Canada and its sociohistory, such as white colonization/supremacy, land theft/dispossession, and systemic racism’s impact on Indigenous and black peoples. The article notes key CRT tenets, such as race/racism centrality, challenge to dominant ideology, historicization, the role of experiential knowledge (especially marginalized knowledge), the interdisciplinary perspective, and commitment to social justice (although the authors neglect to use this generally accepted terminology). The article also examines how legal processes unique to Canada (e.g., treaties and resource extraction policies)—but nevertheless rooted in more general processes of colonization, slavery, capitalism, and racial violence—have functioned to formulate and sustain a “system” of white supremacy and coloniality that, while qualitatively distinct throughout time, persists in the present day. The author(s) discuss the social-political backlash associated with the emergence of CRT within the general public consciousness and its origins in contemporary white supremacist tactics (e.g., use of misinformation around CRT). The author(s) end their essay by listing questions in need of further research and concluding that CRT provides a needed lens by which to decolonize Canada’s racist post-colonial/multicultural notions of actual race-relations within the country.
Preliminary Comments: The topic is important and the idea of integrating CRT into scholarship outside of the USA (i.e., Canada) is fascinating and long overdue. Research and frameworks are needed to determine the extent to which CRT tenets are applicable to racisms outside the “American” context. I commend the author(s) for their initial attempts at meting out this complex endeavor. At the same time, I have some concerns, both minor and major. As such, there are notable limitations with the current draft (see below) that should be addressed to be publishable. If the authors make a genuine attempt to address these issues, I believe a revised manuscript deserves another round of peer-review. Please see the specific comments below:
Reviewer Comments:
· Perhaps the biggest limitation of the current draft concerns the explicit use of CRT. The following are some observations:
o Although the author(s) provide a brief history of CRT’s origins and list some tenets (pp. 4-5), throughout the paper there is limited use of the actual terminology/jargon common in CRT scholarship. Although the authors note the legal origins of CRT, and mention its appearance in other fields, the authors also ignore how much of CRT developed within the educational field more specifically. Arguably, much of CRT has both legal and educational influences (given the scholars involved), with other fields borrowing from these two areas. The authors should look into the following resources, as they do a great job of articulating the origins/definitions of generally accepted legal and educational CRT tenets, many of which are alluded to in the manuscript:
§ Cabrera, N. L. (2018). Where is the racial theory in critical race theory? A constructive criticism of the crits. Review of Higher Education, 42(1), 209-233. https://doi.org/10.1353/rhe.2018.0038
§ Capper, C. A. (2015). The 20th-year anniversary of critical race theory in education: Implications for leading to eliminate racism. Educational Administration Quarterly, 51(5), 791-833. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X15607616
§ Horsford, S. D. (2010). Mixed feelings about mixed schools: Superintendents on the complex legacy of school desegregation. Educational Administration Quarterly, 46(3), 287-321. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X10365825
§ Mensah, F. M., & Jackson, I. (2018). Whiteness as property in science teacher education. Teachers College Record, 120(1), 1-38.
§ Vargas, J. H., Saetermoe, C. L., & Chavira, G. (2021). Using critical race theory to reframe mentor training: Theoretical considerations regarding the ecological systems of mentorship. Higher Education, 81(5), 1043-1062. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-020-00598-z
o Related to the above, there is no clear “mapping” between the paper’s overall arguments and the CRT tenets. CRT is a complex framework with many moving parts, and the authors’ arguments are similarly complex. There needs to be more explicit links between the arguments and CRT. There also needs to be more elaboration about certain terms (e.g., Land Back), which may be unfamiliar to audiences outside Indigenous research circles. In addition to more explicit links in the body of the manuscript, the paper would benefit from figure(s)/diagram(s) that illustrate the paper’s central thesis/arguments and their connection to CRT (such a figure might also help the authors best express the historical connections between white supremacist colonialism, land theft from Indigenous peoples, the slave trade, and their roles in classical to late-stage capitalism)
o Related to the above, the authors should justify why they have focused on certain CRT tenets (some of which come from law, but others that overlap with education) and not others. Although I wouldn’t expect the authors to apply in their analysis every single CRT tenet that has been articulated to date (that would be impractical), it is important to justify why some tenets may be more relevant to the overall thesis of the manuscript. This would help address another major concern: how exactly does CRT “add to, challenge, or modify” an understanding of Canada’s race-relations vis-à-vis other theoretical frameworks (e.g., anticolonial theories; critical feminism; Marxism; etc.). Although I’m not asking the authors to bring in these other perspectives, I am asking that the authors be clearer in justifying the use of CRT in this domain of study; in other words, why is CRT so special in this area? (note that I believe CRT is applicable in this area, but I just don’t see the connections or how a “pure” anticolonial lens wouldn’t suffice in explaining Canada’s race-relations)
· The paper is very long and loaded with many ideas, not all of which seem to be connected in a meaningful way. As stated above, this may be due to the lack of clear connections between CRT tenets and the paper’s main arguments. It is strongly recommended that the paper be shortened and that the content be focused on a manageable set of central arguments and germane CRT tenets (see mark-ups in the PDF file)
· Related to the above, the paper also has an excessive number of quotes. It would be preferable if the authors paraphrase quotes and that they remain mindful of the word count by being concise. In addition, it would be more interesting if the authors apply the information being quoted rather than merely writing down the quotes themselves; word space would be best spent on articulating the paper’s thesis and the authors’ thoughts and logic, not on restating the words of others
· There are also some minor things that should be addressed in order to strengthen the organization and flow of the paper:
o Overall, the paper is well-written. The authors should pay careful attention to grammar and sentence structure. Use of commas can improve sentence flow; shorter sentences can improve ease. In formal scientific papers, avoid contractions unless they’re part of quotes (see mark-ups in the PDF file)
o The sections can be improved by including subheadings; also, perhaps collapsing (and condensing) the information from Sections 4 and 5; also, combine info from Sections 6 and 7
o The “Limitations” section is full of rhetorical questions (which, indeed, are interesting for future research), but the authors do not provide “Future Directions” on how to address those questions. More importantly, how can CRT address those types of questions and how does it relate to the specific CRT approach advocated by the authors (again, this is where a figure/diagram could be helpful in illustrating a “Canadian variant” of CRT, so to speak)
o There are certain parts of the paper that may work better if they’re moved to earlier/other sections of the manuscript (see mark-ups in the PDF file)
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis is an engaging paper that grapples with the complex backlash to CRT in recent years. In particular, the paper focusses on the need for greater inclusion of CRT theory for understanding ongoing racialised inequalities experienced by indigenous, Black and racially minoritised communities in Canada.
Overall, this is a well-referenced and sound paper. It would benefit from greater explication of the context of indigenous communities in Canada and some reference to the research outlining their experience and scholarship.
The paper relies on secondary sources and whilst thorough in coverage it does not fully account for the work already done by Black and indigenous scholars on the value of CRT - there is after all a branch of CRT that focusses on indigenous CRT. As such, it is a little difficult to tell if this paper is more a position piece/ call to include more CRT in research, theoretical work, or law; or if it is a critique of the way CRT has been excluded in sociological work in Canada. Making this clearer at the start and threading throughout will add clarity to the paper.
Better use of examples where CRT has been successfully used would also help build the argument and highlight where the gaps are in the literature/research. Where examples are used, it is important to outline why they are important for the debate on CRT. Examples also need to be defined for a more general audience. For example, the Land Back movement needs a few lines explaining what it is at the point of first mention in the paper. It strikes me that the sections on this movement and settler/indigenous relations needs to be made front and centre in this paper as a core example around which debates over meritocracy, multi-culturalism, and the value and current exclusion of CRT can be unpacked.
Whilst a very well-written paper, it might help to refocus the argument around the issue of settler/indigenous relations in Canada. Using this as a central example to unpack the ways in which CRT has been used, excluded, or challenged, and what the implications of this engagement has been. This would add further clarity to the paper.
This paper has the potential to provide a solid contribution to value of CRT in scholarship and activism.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors are advised to check grammar and punctuation carefully. There are still a few errors (I marked some but not all)
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Reviewer: The authors are advised to check grammar and punctuation carefully. There are still a few errors (I marked some but not all).
I have corrected all of the typos/grammar mistakes that were noted by the round 2 reviewer. i appreciate the close reading of my article. RR.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
