Of Word Grenades and Impermeable Walls: Imperial Scholarship Then and Now

Abstract

This article begins by discussing past and present battles over what history and science should be presented in the high school curriculum. Some states would prefer that young students not learn about subjects like slavery, conquest, or evolution. Accordingly, such states ban these subjects from the curriculum, claiming that they favor particular ethnic groups and reflect “ideological bias.” However, a whitewashed curriculum that intentionally cultivates traditional patriotism is not neutral: it privileges White people by presenting only positive aspects of their history and by pretending that only positives exist. There is no position of objectivity. Every curricular choice represents an ideological bias of some sort.

Much scholarship in constitutional law reflects a similar unwillingness to engage seriously with the history of race and racism. This article discusses the epistemic limitations of imperial scholarship. Coined by Richard Delgado, “imperial scholarship” is civil rights scholarship produced mostly by White scholars that does not engage the insights or history produced by critical race scholarship. Most constitutional law scholars fail to address meaningfully the proslavery Constitution, despite the conclusion of a majority of historians that the document was proslavery. Scholarly attempts to ignore this fact marginalize the importance of race and racism before and at the founding of the nation. This article questions how much longer it will take before constitutional law scholars give serious consideration of how the proslavery Constitution, its politics, and its implementation continue to shape contemporary racism.

Keywords: Education, Constitutional Law, Race, Racism, Inequality, Slavery, Sociology and Law

JEL Classification: K00