Critical race theory, with its focus on intersectionality and pragmatic approaches to solving racial
injustice, must abandon projects for reparations in relation to historical wrongs, and focus
exclusively on forward-looking approaches to justice.
Discuss.
Whilst this essay contends that critical race theory (hereinafter “CRT”) should abandon financial
reparations for historical wrongs, this doesn’t mean we should completely abandon a backwards-
looking perspective. To focus exclusively on forward-looking approaches to justice would fail to
address the root causes of current inequalities. Subsequently, attempts to avert the perpetuation of
systemic racism would be futile. This essay argues in favour of a comprehensive approach.
This essay will first outline the objectives of CRT, using Rawls’ concept of the basic structure to
explain how racism is institutionalised and therefore perpetuated by American society. With this
context, this essay will then determine whether Aristotelian corrective justice can ground claims for
financial reparations, considering the struggle of establishing causation. The forward-looking
approach will then be examined, considering whether citizen participation is enough to ground
moral responsibility, and whether ignoring the impact of past injustices can truly result in resolution.
Finally, a comprehensive approach will be proposed, focusing on education as a means of arousing
the conscience of the community, subsequently facilitating reconciliation, and establishing a mutual
obligation by converging the interests all races in combatting racial injustice.
CRT and Rawls’ basic structure
This essay is concerned with American racial injustice, with the term ‘historical wrongs’ referring to
slavery and Jim Crow. The effects of these injustices persist in contemporary society with disparities
in areas such as poverty, education, and housing. 1 This is because such injustices and subsequent
social conceptions of race have shaped society and founded the nation’s institutions, such as the
legal system, political constitution, and economy, on discrimination. 2 Therefore, CRT recognises that
racial injustices are manifestations of structural and systemic racism, rather than “isolated instances
of bigoted behaviour”,3 which don’t necessitate societal action. 4
To understand how racism is systematic, it’s useful to consider Rawls’ theory of justice, specifically
his concept of the ‘basic structure of society’. He explains that society comprises of key institutions
1
Alfred L Brophy, ‘Reparations Pro and Con’ [2006] Oxford University Press, xi.
2
Eric J Miller, ‘Reconceiving Reparations: Multiple Strategies in the Reparations Debate Symposium: Healing
the Wounds of Slavery: Can Present Legal Remedies Cure Past Wrongs’ (2004) 24 Boston College Third World
Law Journal 45, 46.
3
Edward Taylor, ‘A Primer on Critical Race Theory’ [1998] The Journal of Blacks in Higher Education 122.
4
Janel George, ‘A Lesson on Critical Race Theory’ (2021) 46 Civil Rights and Social Justice Human Rights
Magazine (American Bar Association).
Page 1 of 9
, which allocate “the main benefits and burdens of a social life” such as which individuals will receive
basic rights, opportunities, social recognition, and wealth. 5 As American society was formed when
Blacks (hereinafter “Blacks”) were deprived of full participation in society, discrimination is ingrained
within these institutions, functioning in the interests of Whites whilst preventing Black progression.
For example, federal redlining of Blacks during the 1930s enforced segregation. 6 The inability for
Blacks to accumulate wealth through homeownership had a profound on the wealth gap and other
areas of society in the establishment of segregated Black communities, with urban ‘ghetto’
communities still facing significant inequalities in health, education, and job opportunities. 7 This
demonstrates how systematic racism has caused Blacks to be trapped within a vicious cycle of
disadvantage. Therefore, the ideal goal of CRT is to structurally change society, so it emancipates
and empowers Blacks rather than furthering oppression, 8 and provides everyone with equality of
opportunity.
Reparations and a backwards-looking approach
As descendants of the victims of historical wrongs remain disadvantaged by the system, it will be
evaluated whether Aristotelian corrective justice can ground claims for financial reparations. Whilst
the term ‘reparations’ can be interpreted in several different ways, for the sake of brevity and
feasibility, the definition will be confined to monetary compensation.
If one person has wronged another, Aristotle’s corrective justice theory imposes a duty on the
wrongdoer to rectify the wrong, 9 and subsequently restore a state of notional equality which
consists “in persons having what lawfully belongs to them”. 10 Wyman interprets his theory to
comprise of three conditions which must be satisfied to impose a duty of repair on the wrongdoer:
(i) both actors must still exist; (ii) human rights must have been violated; and (iii) a remedy must be
possible. As slavery and Jim Crow clearly satisfy (ii), the other factors will be considered in turn.
Condition (i)
Condition (i) faces immediate issues as neither the victims nor wrongdoers of slavery are still alive. 11
A strict reading of the existence requirement would subsequently find that the duty of repair ceases
5
Wenar, Leif, ‘John Rawls’ in Edward N. Zalta (ed), The Standard Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2021,
Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University 2021).
6
Dima Williams, ‘A Look at Housing Inequality and Racism in The U.S.’ Forbes (2020).
7
ibid.
8
George (n 4).
9
Jules L Coleman, Risks and Wrongs (Oxford University Press 1992) 314–315.
10
Ernest J Weinrib, ‘Corrective Justice in a Nutshell’ (2002) 52 The University of Toronto Law Journal 349, 349.
11
Katrina M. Wyman, ‘Is There a Moral Justification for Redressing Historical Injustices?’ (2008) 61 Vanderbilt
Law Review 150.
Page 2 of 9
injustice, must abandon projects for reparations in relation to historical wrongs, and focus
exclusively on forward-looking approaches to justice.
Discuss.
Whilst this essay contends that critical race theory (hereinafter “CRT”) should abandon financial
reparations for historical wrongs, this doesn’t mean we should completely abandon a backwards-
looking perspective. To focus exclusively on forward-looking approaches to justice would fail to
address the root causes of current inequalities. Subsequently, attempts to avert the perpetuation of
systemic racism would be futile. This essay argues in favour of a comprehensive approach.
This essay will first outline the objectives of CRT, using Rawls’ concept of the basic structure to
explain how racism is institutionalised and therefore perpetuated by American society. With this
context, this essay will then determine whether Aristotelian corrective justice can ground claims for
financial reparations, considering the struggle of establishing causation. The forward-looking
approach will then be examined, considering whether citizen participation is enough to ground
moral responsibility, and whether ignoring the impact of past injustices can truly result in resolution.
Finally, a comprehensive approach will be proposed, focusing on education as a means of arousing
the conscience of the community, subsequently facilitating reconciliation, and establishing a mutual
obligation by converging the interests all races in combatting racial injustice.
CRT and Rawls’ basic structure
This essay is concerned with American racial injustice, with the term ‘historical wrongs’ referring to
slavery and Jim Crow. The effects of these injustices persist in contemporary society with disparities
in areas such as poverty, education, and housing. 1 This is because such injustices and subsequent
social conceptions of race have shaped society and founded the nation’s institutions, such as the
legal system, political constitution, and economy, on discrimination. 2 Therefore, CRT recognises that
racial injustices are manifestations of structural and systemic racism, rather than “isolated instances
of bigoted behaviour”,3 which don’t necessitate societal action. 4
To understand how racism is systematic, it’s useful to consider Rawls’ theory of justice, specifically
his concept of the ‘basic structure of society’. He explains that society comprises of key institutions
1
Alfred L Brophy, ‘Reparations Pro and Con’ [2006] Oxford University Press, xi.
2
Eric J Miller, ‘Reconceiving Reparations: Multiple Strategies in the Reparations Debate Symposium: Healing
the Wounds of Slavery: Can Present Legal Remedies Cure Past Wrongs’ (2004) 24 Boston College Third World
Law Journal 45, 46.
3
Edward Taylor, ‘A Primer on Critical Race Theory’ [1998] The Journal of Blacks in Higher Education 122.
4
Janel George, ‘A Lesson on Critical Race Theory’ (2021) 46 Civil Rights and Social Justice Human Rights
Magazine (American Bar Association).
Page 1 of 9
, which allocate “the main benefits and burdens of a social life” such as which individuals will receive
basic rights, opportunities, social recognition, and wealth. 5 As American society was formed when
Blacks (hereinafter “Blacks”) were deprived of full participation in society, discrimination is ingrained
within these institutions, functioning in the interests of Whites whilst preventing Black progression.
For example, federal redlining of Blacks during the 1930s enforced segregation. 6 The inability for
Blacks to accumulate wealth through homeownership had a profound on the wealth gap and other
areas of society in the establishment of segregated Black communities, with urban ‘ghetto’
communities still facing significant inequalities in health, education, and job opportunities. 7 This
demonstrates how systematic racism has caused Blacks to be trapped within a vicious cycle of
disadvantage. Therefore, the ideal goal of CRT is to structurally change society, so it emancipates
and empowers Blacks rather than furthering oppression, 8 and provides everyone with equality of
opportunity.
Reparations and a backwards-looking approach
As descendants of the victims of historical wrongs remain disadvantaged by the system, it will be
evaluated whether Aristotelian corrective justice can ground claims for financial reparations. Whilst
the term ‘reparations’ can be interpreted in several different ways, for the sake of brevity and
feasibility, the definition will be confined to monetary compensation.
If one person has wronged another, Aristotle’s corrective justice theory imposes a duty on the
wrongdoer to rectify the wrong, 9 and subsequently restore a state of notional equality which
consists “in persons having what lawfully belongs to them”. 10 Wyman interprets his theory to
comprise of three conditions which must be satisfied to impose a duty of repair on the wrongdoer:
(i) both actors must still exist; (ii) human rights must have been violated; and (iii) a remedy must be
possible. As slavery and Jim Crow clearly satisfy (ii), the other factors will be considered in turn.
Condition (i)
Condition (i) faces immediate issues as neither the victims nor wrongdoers of slavery are still alive. 11
A strict reading of the existence requirement would subsequently find that the duty of repair ceases
5
Wenar, Leif, ‘John Rawls’ in Edward N. Zalta (ed), The Standard Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2021,
Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University 2021).
6
Dima Williams, ‘A Look at Housing Inequality and Racism in The U.S.’ Forbes (2020).
7
ibid.
8
George (n 4).
9
Jules L Coleman, Risks and Wrongs (Oxford University Press 1992) 314–315.
10
Ernest J Weinrib, ‘Corrective Justice in a Nutshell’ (2002) 52 The University of Toronto Law Journal 349, 349.
11
Katrina M. Wyman, ‘Is There a Moral Justification for Redressing Historical Injustices?’ (2008) 61 Vanderbilt
Law Review 150.
Page 2 of 9
