This is the 15th part of a series on Christianity and the history of antisemitism. While we are often reminded to “Never forget,” many of us were never taught this history.

The opposition to Critical Race Theory (CRT) among many prominent Jewish figures raises an important question: Do these critics oppose CRT as a legal and academic theory, or do they oppose how it has been applied in practice? While some Jewish intellectuals and activists reject CRT in its entirety, others argue that the way CRT has been implemented—especially in education, DEI programs, and public discourse—has led to unintended negative consequences, including the marginalization of Jewish experiences and the rise of new forms of antisemitism.

This distinction is crucial. Many Jewish critics of CRT do not dispute that systemic racism has existed in America. However, they challenge the way CRT has been adapted into public policy, corporate training, and university curricula—often in ways that erase Jewish history, reinforce racial essentialism, and fail to address antisemitism.

I. What is Critical Race Theory, and Why is It Controversial?

Originally developed in the 1970s and 1980s by legal scholars such as Derrick Bell and Kimberlé Crenshaw, CRT was meant to examine how laws and institutions have perpetuated racial inequalities. It rejects the idea that racism is just individual prejudice, instead arguing that racism is embedded in legal systems, social structures, and economic policies.

While CRT was initially a niche academic theory, its application in education, DEI initiatives, and corporate settings has generated controversy. Many Jewish critics do not oppose CRT’s original premise but argue that its real-world application has:

1. Framed Jews as “white” and privileged, ignoring historical Jewish oppression.
2. Downplayed antisemitism by focusing primarily on Black-white dynamics.
3. Created new racial hierarchies that do not account for Jewish experiences.
4. Promoted ideas that fuel antisemitic conspiracy theories.

II. Jewish Critics of CRT: Rejecting the Theory vs. Opposing Its Application

1. Those Who Reject CRT Entirely

Some Jewish critics, particularly conservatives, argue that CRT itself is fundamentally flawed because it divides society into oppressors and oppressed based on race. They believe it is a neo-Marxist ideology that replaces individual responsibility with group identity politics.

Ben Shapiro (Conservative Commentator, The Daily Wire)

• Opposes CRT as an ideology
• • Calls CRT “anti-American racial indoctrination” and a divisive ideology.
  • Argues that CRT erases Jewish history by focusing only on Black-white racial struggles.
  • Believes CRT fosters resentment and undermines meritocracy.

• Bill Ackman (Business & Finance, Pershing Square Capital)

• Rejects CRT and its core principles

  • Criticized Harvard for promoting CRT-inspired “racially divisive ideologies”.
  • Argues that CRT is a direct attack on meritocracy and reinforces racial stereotypes.

• Jonathan Haidt (Psychologist, The Coddling of the American Mind)

• Opposes CRT’s foundational assumptions

  • Believes CRT replaces liberal values with tribalism.
  • Argues that CRT encourages victimhood culture and stifles academic rigor.

These figures oppose both CRT as an academic framework and how it has been implemented. They see no redeeming value in CRT and view it as an inherently divisive, illiberal, and ideologically driven movement.

2. Those Who Critique How CRT Has Been Applied

Other Jewish thinkers do not necessarily reject CRT’s original ideas about systemic racism, but they take issue with how CRT is applied in DEI programs, education, and public discourse. Their primary concerns include:

• The erasure of Jewish historical oppression (e.g., treating Jews as “white”).

• The failure to recognize antisemitism as a systemic issue.

• The way CRT-based policies pit minority groups against each other (e.g., conflicts between Jews and other marginalized communities over Israel, affirmative action, and race-based reparations).

• Bari Weiss (Journalist, The Free Press)

• Opposes how CRT is applied, not necessarily the entire theory

  • Criticizes CRT for oversimplifying racial struggles and ignoring Jewish oppression.
  • Believes CRT suppresses dissent and enforces ideological conformity.
  • Argues that CRT-aligned DEI programs contribute to antisemitism by treating Jews as privileged.

• David Bernstein (Author, Woke Antisemitism)

• Critiques how CRT has been weaponized

  • Believes CRT frames Jews as part of the “oppressor class”, which fuels resentment and antisemitic narratives.
  • Warns that CRT-based identity politics divide minority groups instead of uniting them.

• Kenneth Marcus (Former U.S. Department of Education)

• Opposes how CRT policies marginalize Jewish concerns

  • Argues that CRT’s race-based framework ignores antisemitism because it doesn’t fit into the Black-white binary.
  • Opposes how CRT-driven DEI initiatives exclude Jewish voices in discussions on systemic oppression.

• Joshua Katz (Former Princeton Professor)

• Opposes how CRT enforces ideological uniformity

  • Lost his job after criticizing CRT-driven policies at Princeton.
  • Warns that CRT, like DEI, undermines academic freedom and free expression.

These figures do not necessarily oppose the entire premise of CRT but argue that its modern applications have harmed Jews by distorting history, reinforcing antisemitic narratives, and marginalizing Jewish voices in discussions on oppression.

3. Those Who Support CRT (With Some Reservations)

A small number of Jewish scholars and activists support CRT’s core principles while still critiquing aspects of identity politics. They argue that CRT is a valuable tool for understanding systemic racism, but they acknowledge that some applications of CRT-based policies have had unintended negative consequences for Jews.

• Norman Finkelstein (Leftist Academic, The Holocaust Industry)
• Supports CRT but critiques elite DEI policies
  • Believes CRT’s analysis of systemic racism is valid and aligns with leftist critiques of white supremacy.
  • However, he has criticized corporate DEI programs as performative and exclusionary.

This perspective is rare among Jewish intellectuals, as most Jewish critics of CRT argue that it has been applied in ways that erase Jewish history and ignore antisemitism.

III. Conclusion: Opposition to CRT is More About Its Application Than Its Theory

While some Jewish critics reject CRT entirely, most are more concerned with how CRT has been implemented in education, DEI programs, and public policy. The key takeaways are:

• Many Jewish critics do not deny that systemic racism exists but believe CRT oversimplifies racial dynamics.
• CRT’s modern application often marginalizes Jewish experiences and erases Jewish oppression.
• Jewish critics worry that CRT-aligned DEI programs foster identity-based resentment and antisemitic narratives.
• A few Jewish scholars still support CRT’s principles but critique how identity politics have been co-opted by elite institutions.

Ultimately, Jewish opposition to CRT is not necessarily a rejection of systemic racism as a concept but rather a reaction to how CRT-inspired policies have led to new exclusions, distortions of history, and failures to address antisemitism