Wary the ‘Voice’ rooted in Critical Race Theory?
The battle to dampen soaring temperatures in Australia has more to do with referendum day than a change in seasons.
Next week, Australia reaches a pivotal point – a fork in the road that will either divide it, or have it realise why being unified is important.
Post referendum, there won’t be an in-between – every Australian must think what a ‘Yes’ vote delivers.
And while the stakes are high, what should be realised is what the ‘Voice’ is rooted in.
The ‘Voice’ appears to be rooted in Critical Race Theory (CRT) - a divisive controversial ideology originating in the US.
CRT and its potential influence on the ‘Voice’, raises questions about the path Australia should take moving forward.
If anyone’s unclear what CRT is and its origins, they should look from where it originated and why.
CRT emerged in the US during the 70s and 80s as a framework for systemic racism and its impact on legal institutions and social structures.
Supporters of CRT argue it’s an inherent and structural feature of Western society.
As its evolved, CRT has expanded into other disciplines to become a driving force behind several social justice movements.
No matter how it’s portrayed, the US has shown it to be a divisive ideology focussing on identity politics, sowing racial division, while promoting the idea Western societies are inherently racist.
The debate around CRT has been particularly prominent in the US’s education system, where efforts to include or exclude CRT-based teachings have led to major controversy.
The push for a ‘Voice’ may have been influenced by CRT.
Establishing a body like the ‘Voice’, would inevitably adopt a CRT perspective Australia's institutions are structurally racist, requiring a separate and distinct Indigenous voice to counteract an inherent bias.
What’s concerning is how CRT may influence the lead up to a polarised society, where different groups are consistently at odds.
The danger is that focusing on group identity rather than individual rights could fracture Australia, leading to a future where policies and decisions are made based on identity politics rather than the broader good.
In the US, CRT has contributed to an increased state of political and social polarisation.
School board meetings, once mundane, are now battlegrounds over curriculum content, with parents, educators, and community members clashing over the teaching of CRT and its related concepts.
The US experience illustrates the pitfalls of integrating a contentious ideology into the country’s institutions.
Distinguishing between recognising and addressing historical injustices faced by Indigenous Australians and adopting a potentially divisive ideology like CRT is critical.
Advocates for Indigenous rights argue the ‘Voice’ isn’t about pushing CRT, but about rectifying past wrongs and ensuring a better future for all Australians.
The belief is that it's possible to establish a ‘Voice’ without sowing division or promoting an ideology many Australians find contentious.
For Australia to avoid the pitfalls the US has experienced, it's crucial it approaches the ‘Voice’ with caution, clarity, and a commitment to unity.
If Australia can learn anything from the US, it's the importance of unity and the dangers of letting a divisive ideology drive a wedge between Australians.
While the intentions behind the ‘Voice’ are rooted in the desire to empower and recognise Indigenous Australians, it's important to be wary of the potential influences of CRT and its divisive nature.
Learning from the US experience and approaching the issue with a focus on unity and open dialogue, Australia can chart a path forward that respects the rights and voices of all its Australians.