As we start a new academic year, critical race theory in our schools, colleges and universities is under debate across the country. Educators are considering if they can adequately teach about race-driven topics and moments in American history – like the Trail of Tears, the Civil War and the civil rights movement – without also teaching about race, ethnicity and systemic racism.
Critical race theory, or CRT, may have recently entered everyday conversations and the media; however, it’s not a new concept. It was developed in the 1970s by scholars as a framework to chart how racism and discrimination are baked into our country’s systems of education, health care, laws and other facets of life. Supporters say we need CRT to understand the root causes of systemic racism and racial inequities in our country. But critics say the notion supports reverse discrimination against people based on their whiteness.
Some have argued that students, especially white students, will be harmed by exposure to these difficult or self-demoralizing ideas. The debate recently gained heightened attention following last year’s racial reckoning in our country. Now several states – including Oklahoma, Idaho, Iowa and Tennessee – have laws banning the teaching of critical race theory in K-12 education, and additional states are considering similar legislation. States like Oklahoma and Idaho even have laws against CRT in universities and colleges.
Meanwhile, this fall California State University will require students to take at least one course in ethnic studies to graduate. The University of Pittsburgh, Cornell University and Emory University have followed suit with establishing diversity course requirements.
Prohibiting the teaching of critical race theory is especially detrimental for the health sciences. Without CRT in the health sciences, education will run contrary to proven research. This is why institutions like UCSF have acknowledged systemic racism as a public health issue and are taking action to help eliminate it. If we deny systemic racism, we will be denying evidence-based clinical expertise. The root causes of other racial and ethnic disparities also will be denied, such as a higher mortality rate for Black and Native American mothers and a shortened lifespan for people of color, which can be traced back to systemic racism in our health care, housing, education, employment and other areas.
Health care professionals and scientists have a responsibility to understand systemic racism, its historical roots, and its implications for health disparities. Today’s health science curriculum is now beginning to connect systemic racism to oral health and overall health. Historically, these courses have focused on health disparities and inequities without teaching critical perspectives on the social, historic and economic reasons that lead to health disparities and marginalize people of color.
At UCSF Dentistry, the work is commencing to develop a new curriculum that will incorporate the analysis of systemic racism into health science courses. Our school now requires first-year dental students to learn about anti-racism as part of orientation; an additional session introduces students to racial bias, structural racism and how to build skills for equity and cultural humility.
However, this work is only beginning. It’s our job as educators and health care professionals to ensure that health science education remains a protected place for research and innovations. Academic health centers, like UCSF, must continue to preserve our academic freedoms to tell the whole truth, and to reject the suppression of knowledge. Banning lessons on race and systemic racism in higher education is unconstitutional and prevents universities and colleges from performing their function in society.
— Michael Reddy, Dean, UCSF School of Dentistry, Associate Vice Chancellor, Oral Health Affairs
