No concessions—We cannot accept any degree of racism. It makes injustice and violence inevitable. Even if our alternative doesn’t solve you have an affirmative obligation to act in the face of racism
Memmi 2000 (Albert, , Professor Emeritus of Sociology at the University of Paris, Racism, University of Minnesota Press, translated by Steve Martinot, p. 163)
The struggle against racism will be long, difficult, without intermission, without remission, probably never achieved. Yet for this very reason, it is a struggle to be undertaken without surcease and without concessions. One cannot be indulgent toward racism; one must not even let the monster in the house, especially not in a mask. To give it merely a foothold means to augment the bestial part in us and in other people, which is to diminish what is human. To accept the racist universe to the slightest degree is to endorse fear, injustice and violence. It is to accept the persistence of the dark history in which we still largely live. It is to agree that the outsider will always be a possible victim (and which [person]
man is not [themself] himself an outsider relative to someone else?). Racism illustrates in sum, the inevitable negativity of the condition of the dominated; that is, it illuminates in a certain sense the entire human condition. The anti-racist struggle, difficult though it is, and always in question, is nevertheless one of the prologues to the ultimate passage from animality to humanity. In that sense, we cannot fail to rise to the racist challenge.
FW – CRT Education Key
The call for objective education that silences a critical race perspective furthers white privilege
Lopez, 2003 (Gerardo [Professor of Political Science], "The (Racially Neutral) Politics of Education: A Critical Race Theory Perspective", Educational Administration Quarterly Vol. 39, No. 1 (February 2003) 68-94, 6/28, eaq.sagepub.com/content/39/1/68.full.pdf) // cjh
Taken holistically, CRT posits that beliefs in neutrality, democracy, objectivity,¶ and equality “are not just unattainable ideals, they are harmful fictions¶ that obscure the normative supremacy of whiteness in American law and¶ society” (Valdes et al., 2002, p. 3). Notwithstanding, White Americans continue¶ to believe in these ideals, because a racial reality is, perhaps, too difficult¶ to digest. For example, if I were to argue that what we study within the¶ politics of education is entirely racist, most scholars in the field—conservative¶ and liberal alike—would be greatly offended, finding such statements¶ preposterous and absurd. Although some would agree there might be certain¶ institutional practices (such as power) that limit the political participation of¶ nonmainstream groups, or perhaps a handful of truly racist individuals whose¶ values and beliefs create policies that negatively affect people of color, most¶ of us would believe that our knowledge base is not largely affected by racism.¶ To the contrary, most of us would tend to believe that what we study actually¶ highlights the processes by which people of color are marginalized on a¶ daily basis and how they can challenge and change the political spectrum¶ through voting, grassroots organizing, mass mobilization, and the election of¶ minority officials and representatives. In other words, the belief that the politics¶ of education actively supports a racist agenda does not fit our prevailing¶ and espoused beliefs about the nature of the field.¶ The role of CRT is to highlight the fact that such beliefs only serve to¶ maintain racism in place—relegating racism to overt/blatant and unmistakable¶ acts of hatred, as opposed to highlighting the ways in which our beliefs,¶ practices, knowledge, and apparatuses reproduce a system of racial hierarchy¶ and social inequality. Rarely do we question our own values and knowledge¶ base and how those beliefs emerge from—and help sustain—the notion of a¶ racially neutral and democratic social order that works for all people. In other¶ words, within the field, we have a tendency to think that social problems¶ (such as racism) will be resolved if more people get involved in the political¶ arena and “do something” about it. The belief in democracy and “justice for¶ all” is protected—as is the belief that the vehicles to ascertain social justice¶ are racially neutral. It is a cheery and simplistic take on how racism actually¶ functions in society, as well as a naïve understanding how it can be resolved¶ and remedied.
FW -- Epistemology
Debate’s epistemology of whiteness must be challenged before other questions
Calderon 6—(Dolores, University of Utah assistant professor in the Department of Education, Culture, and Society and the Ethnic Studies Program “One-Dimensionality and Whiteness” USA Policy Futures in Education, Volume 4, Number 1, 2006 http://pfe.sagepub.com/content/4/1/73.full.pdf+html , cayla_)
In the context of education, elaborating upon the work of critical pedagogues, one must focus on the one-dimensional nature of schooling and how it serves to maintain the needs of advanced industrial society. Breaking from critical pedagogy, though, I argue that this one-dimensional character, the standardization movement, is a reproduction of the normative ideology of whiteness. The reproduction of whiteness in structures serves to oppress raced, gendered, and classed individuals and communities who deviate from the norms established by the ideology of whiteness. Thus, in the context of education, I argue that the crucial theoretical tools we have to challenge onedimensional education and refuse whiteness are critical race theory and critical multicultural education. By pairing the work of Herbert Marcuse ( 1991, 1969) with the work of critical race theorists I also hope to bring to the fore how whiteness is overlooked by contemporary critical scholars of education in their works on education, which traditionally center class-based analyses, and instead follow in the footsteps of those scholars who bring race and racism to the forefront of their work ( Ladson-Billings, 1997; Yosso, 2002; Sleeter & Bernal, 2003; Allen, 2004). Sleeter & Bernal (2003) argue that ‘most of the literature in critical pedagogy does not directly address race, ethnicity, or gender, and as such has a white bias’ (2003, p. 2). Moreover, this centering of class has detrimental effects upon analyses of race and ethnicity, and has ‘the effect of elevating the power of largely White radical theorists over theorists of color’ (2003, p. 2). Even if unintended, the power white critical theorists have to name and theorize sites of oppression produces ‘silences’ upon the epistemological validity of the experiences of oppressed communities (2003, p. 3). Thus, critical race theory in education is an important tool to pierce the silence of singularly class-based analyses of schooling (Yosso, 2002). Furthermore, it is through the lens of critical race theory that the important insights of Marcuse can be rescued from silencing discourses which attempt to find the moments of liberation in spaces that are one-dimensional. This pairing of Marcuse’s work and critical race theory answers Devon W. Carbado’s (2002) call that ‘a robust notion of race-centricity would, in the context of discussions about education, make clear that educational discourses and institutions both reflect particular conceptions of, and produce, race’