Lack of racial knowledge predicts opposition to critical race theory, new research finds

A new study published in Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin suggests that many people who oppose critical race theory may do so out of ignorance rather than ideology. Across four studies involving college students in the United States, researchers found that individuals who possessed accurate knowledge about the history and realities of race in the country were more likely to support the central ideas of critical race theory. This increased understanding did not make participants feel less patriotic or alienated from their country, countering a common argument made by critics of the theory.

Critical race theory is a scholarly framework that examines how racism is embedded in the fabric of society—across laws, institutions, and historical systems of power. Rather than viewing racism as merely the product of individual bias or isolated incidents, the theory suggests that it is woven into the structures that govern life in the United States. Although originally developed in legal scholarship, critical race theory has since spread into other academic fields and educational contexts. Despite this, or perhaps because of it, it has become a flashpoint in contemporary political discourse.

In recent years, conservative lawmakers across the United States have taken aim at critical race theory, passing legislation to ban or limit discussions of race in classrooms. Their argument is often framed as a defense of national unity and identity. Critics claim that teaching about structural racism and inequality will cause students to feel ashamed of their country or to adopt a hostile view toward American history.

The new research, conducted by Scott Eidelman and his colleagues at the University of Arkansas, sought to examine this assumption. The team hypothesized that many people may reject the tenets of critical race theory not because they have deeply considered and rejected its ideas, but because they lack basic knowledge about race and racism in the country.

“The political climate seemed to assume learning about race and racism was a problem rather than a solution. Also, many seemed to have strong and confident opinions about an obscure legal theory,” explained Eidelman, an associate professor of psychological science

“It got us thinking, why are people so opposed to something they seemingly know little about? We recognized that there would be several answers, but homed in on one we found ironic: that lack of racial knowledge explains why people oppose CRT and even teaching about racial knowledge! What opponents to CRT see as a solution (not teaching about race and racism) would only exaggerate people’s interest in and concerns about race and racism.”

To explore this, the researchers conducted four studies with undergraduate students, the first of which involved 356 participants. These students were given a quiz designed to measure their factual knowledge about race in the United States. The questions covered both historical and contemporary information, such as laws that excluded non-White people from citizenship, disparities in criminal sentencing, and the changing definitions of racial categories. Participants were then asked to indicate how much they agreed with core propositions of critical race theory, such as the idea that racism is common and systemic, that race is socially constructed, and that intersecting identities shape how people experience discrimination.

The researchers found that students with more accurate racial knowledge were more likely to support these tenets, even after controlling for other factors like political conservatism, racial prejudice, and preference for social hierarchies. In other words, the link between knowledge and belief in structural racism was not simply a reflection of political leanings or personal bias. The researchers also asked students about their patriotism, distinguishing between “blind patriotism” (unquestioning loyalty to one’s country) and “constructive patriotism” (the belief that loving one’s country includes a willingness to criticize it to improve it). Racial knowledge was associated with less blind patriotism but greater constructive patriotism.

The next three studies tested whether teaching people about race could actually change their views. Each experiment involved only White participants and compared the effects of teaching students about race versus other topics, such as poverty, transportation infrastructure, or pig intelligence. In the second study, for example, 446 participants were randomly assigned to read a short essay about either racial injustice in the United States or economic inequality. The race essay discussed redlining, the one-drop rule, and the ways racial disparities intersect with other identities. Participants completed a measure of CRT tenet support both before and after reading the essay.

The results showed that students who read about race increased their support for CRT-related ideas more than those who read about poverty. Notably, this shift in perspective was not accompanied by any reduction in positive feelings toward the United States or identification as an American. The third and fourth studies repeated this experiment with different control topics and found consistent results. In each case, learning about structural racism led to more support for CRT principles, while feelings of national identity remained unchanged.

In the fourth study, the researchers tested whether teaching people about just one aspect of systemic racism—housing policy—could have a broader effect on their beliefs. Participants listened to an interview with a historian discussing how housing laws helped to create racial segregation and Black ghettos. Those who heard this interview expressed greater support for CRT tenets afterward, even though the lesson focused on only one area of inequality.

Taken together, the four studies suggest that when people learn accurate, critical information about race in the United States, they become more likely to accept the idea that racism is systemic and enduring. These findings point toward a possible explanation for the widespread opposition to critical race theory among people who may not fully understand it: they simply may not know the historical and social context that makes such a theory persuasive to scholars and advocates.

The researchers also pushed back against a central claim made by opponents of CRT—that teaching about race will undermine national unity. Across all studies, participants who learned more about racism did not express less affection for their country. In fact, those with greater racial knowledge were more likely to say they wanted to make America better, indicating that confronting the truth about racism can inspire civic engagement rather than alienation.

The findings indicate that “learning critical facts about race increases support for the tenets of critical race theory,” Eidelman told PsyPost. “Moreover, acquisition of racial knowledge did not come at the expense of people’s attachment to their country, despite the claims of cultural critics of CRT. You can teach people facts about race and racism, and this makes them more understanding and sympathetic toward matters of racism but at the same time does not result in people hating their country.”

“We were surprised by the consistency of our effects. Critical racial knowledge increased support for the tenets of critical race theory across three experiments, and in each, we did not find a corresponding devaluing of one’s country. In other words, knowledge was consistently strong enough to increase CRT tenet support yet not strong enough to cause any change to detach people from their country.

Like all research, the study has limitations. The participants were mostly young adults enrolled at a single university, which may limit the generalizability of the results to older or more politically diverse populations. The manipulations—brief lessons or essays—were relatively short, and while they produced measurable effects, the size of these effects was small. It’s possible that longer-term educational interventions or more interactive forms of learning might have stronger impacts. Additionally, while the study focused on one type of knowledge—critical knowledge about race—it did not directly compare this with more neutral or traditional forms of racial education.

“We only looked at two means of operationalizing critical racial knowledge, only one way of operationalizing CRT tenet support, and we used convenience samples of college students from only one part of the United States,” Eidelman noted. “For these reasons, we must be very careful before generalizing our findings.”

Future research might explore how racial knowledge affects people outside of academic settings or examine whether similar patterns apply to other controversial topics, such as diversity training or equity initiatives.

“We are now considering whether lack of racial knowledge might explain in part people’s opposition to DEI programs,” Eidelman said.

The study, “Racial Knowledge and the Tenets of Critical Race Theory: Is Opposition to CRT Due to Ignorance?“, was authored by Scott Eidelman, Mejdy Jabr, Emily Vance, Marie Altgilbers Roweton, and Austin Eubanks.