- 1. Reconsider the question posed at the end of chapter 1: Is critical race theory too pessimistic?
- 2. Do CRT’s critics make the mistake of holding up the new paradigm of civil rights thought to the standard of the old one? Is this like deeming Martin Luther a heretic because he sought to change the teachings of the Catholic Church or like judging Jesus by the standards of the Roman Empire?
- 3. Is it problematic that before a certain point, most of the civil rights literature in law was written by a small circle of white scholars who cited mainly each other and ignored the small, but growing, literature written by scholars of color? Or might it have one or more perfectly logical explanations?
- 4. Are stories based on firsthand experience—for example, racial discrimination at a department store—irrefutable (because only the author was there), and, if so, how can other scholars build on or criticize them? Are they power moves? Exclusionary? Useful raw experience or data?
- 5. Is it a waste of time for a movement that seeks social justice to focus on internal issues of identity and the relations of subgroups within itself?
- 6. Is working within the system or outside it the best way to bring about change? Which would you choose, and why?
- 7. If Group A (say, Jews) is successful and Group B (say, blacks) is not, and Group B charges that the system is rigged, is that an implied criticism of Group A, because it implies that they took advantage of an unfair system to get ahead?