Systemic Racism & Sexual Revolution: Replying to Karen Swallow Prior

Formerly teaching English at Liberty University for over 20 years, Karen Swallow Prior presently serves as Research Professor of English and Christianity and Culture at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary. Dr. Prior is author of a number of books including Jane Eyre: A Guide to Reading and Reflecting; On Reading Well: Finding the Good Life through Great Books; Heart of Darkness, and Booked: Literature in the Soul of Me not to mention her prolific online literary presence and numerous magazine articles published in Christianity Today and other major Christian publications.

Prior’s most recent piece on July 12 entitled “Don’t believe in systemic racism? Let’s talk about the sexual revolution” was first published in Religion News Service and reposted yesterday in the Baptist Standard, the denominational paper affiliated with the Baptist General Convention of Texas.

In the piece, Prior attempts to woo “my conservative evangelical camp” to embrace the concept of systemic racism embedded within our culture’s “attitudes, laws, policies, values, and beliefs in ways we can’t always see or recognize” and to “stop pretending otherwise.” Nor is Prior’s frustration with those who dissent from her view lacking. After making what we will show below is a weak analogy between the social consequences of systemic racism and the sexual revolution, Prior laments how,

It’s perplexing to me that the same conservative Christian community of which I am a part—the one that decries the deleterious and nearly inescapable effects of a sexual revolution built into our national laws, culture and institutions—can deny the racist systems upon which our nation was founded and built cannot be equally pervasive and damaging. Even if the most egregious racist laws have been overturned, that doesn’t mean their effects are erased.

While Prior’s sincerity, passion, and even frustration cannot be questioned, her skills of persuasion must be.

Though the commentary Prior offers is brief, there was ample room to list a number of tangible evidences that her claim that systemic racism undeniably exists (Stop pretending!) in our country. Yet Prior offers very little—precious little—to substantiate her claim. Rather she relied almost solely upon systemic racism reshaping the culture in “our attitudes, laws, policies, values and beliefs in ways we can’t always see or recognize.” Of course, the obvious initial question here is, if we can’t see or recognize the ways systemic racism has reshaped our culture, then how might we categorically conclude it exists? What does Prior see or recognize that I do not see or recognize? What is more, if I don’t see or recognize the ways systemic racism has reshaped our culture, then it follows I most certainly cannot be charged with pretending it doesn’t! Pretense assumes recognition does it not?

Please know it’s not that Prior did not attempt to offer evidence for her claims. She began the piece with the existence of a couple of Confederate monuments, a pool closed in retaliation against desegregation lawfully imposed by Civil Rights legislation, and a short hazy list of abstract complaints that, were it evidentially proven in court, would be punishable by law with severe penalties. Redlining, is, after all, against the law.

Prior is to be commended for defining what she takes to be systemic racism. After quoting a definition of systemic racism by the Aspen Institute (Prior quotes the definition of “structural racism” rather than “systemic racism” though the two are similar), she follows it with a similar definition she indicates is grounded in critical race theory, critics of which rightly link to Marxist/neo-Marxist origin: “race is a social construct, and that racism is not merely the product of individual bias or prejudice, but also something embedded in legal systems and policies.” Prior then concludes “one need not embrace critical race theory—I certainly don’t—in order to recognize systemic racism exists and has ongoing ripple effects that can’t always be identified or contained.”

Ever how commendable it is to define one’s terms, it always assists us to know a definition’s source. We find it interesting that Prior embraces a core definition of an organization (Aspen Institute) committed to “dismantling” what it assumes “has been part of the social, economic, and political systems . . . of America’s past and its present“; in short, “structural [i.e. systemic] racism.” Aspen Institute embraces the framework of, defines its terms about, and functions in practice according to the principles of critical race theory. It’s stated goal is racial equity not racial equality. Like critical race theory, Aspen Institute sees and means to make racial outcomes equal across racial identities rather than constitutionally and lawfully assuring all Americans racial equality, human dignity, and just and fair due process under the law. It denies both meritocracy (the contribution and identity of an individual rather than being solely defined by a group or a tribe or a race) and the accomplishments of the Civil Rights legislation (the “colorblind” society that sees all humans as humans not humans defined solely by the color of their skin). Yet Prior insists one “need not embrace” critical race theory (and insists she doesn’t) even as she approvingly cites a core definition detrimental to critical race theorists.

Suppose I approvingly cited a theist’s work who defined the trinity as one God revealing himself in three distinct modes: in the Old Testament, he is revealed as the Creator and Father; in the Gospels, he comes to us as the Son; and in Acts until now, the one God is known to us as the Holy Spirit. How might I escape the charge of modalism? By asserting, “one need not embrace modalism—I certainly don’t—in order to recognize the triune God exists”? If I may, Dr. Prior. . . Stop pretending. To embrace systemic racism the way critical race theorists embrace it is to embrace, at least in some significant way, critical race theory itself.

Finally, let’s look at Dr. Prior’s most salient piece of evidence for systemic racism’s existence. Rather than focus on hard empirical evidence, Prior offers an historical cultural analogy between the sexual revolution of the 1960s and the systemic racism that not only continues to exist now, but, according to Prior, systemic racism has always existed in the United States. Indeed, racism’s presence was apparently imbedded in our founding documents, “racist systems upon which our nation was founded and built.” Aside from the claim that racist systems was the platform upon which our nation was founded and built is lifted straight out of critical race theory generally and the so-called 1619 Project particularly, the analogy Prior makes between the sexual revolution and its shaping of culture and systemic racism and its shaping of culture remains far less persuasive than she thinks.

To be fair to Dr. Prior, she concedes her comparison is “not perfectly analogous” but nonetheless “operates in a similar way.” The problem is, when she describes the two, it’s just a pint short of impossible to see any similarity at all. For example, as she describes the 60s sexual revolution and its social consequences, it is undeniably ubiquitous. It’s everywhere!

The sexual revolution that started in the 1960s—spread through popular culture, enacted by the masses and codified in law—is now as pervasive and inescapable as the pop-up ads on our computer screens . . . From countless racks and shelves, it pushes the books that a few years ago were considered pornography. From myriad loudspeakers, it broadcasts the words and rhythms of pop-music erotica . . . Now, anyone wishing to avoid partaking in any fruits of the sexual revolution would have to opt out of television, newspaper, magazines, movies, sports, shopping malls and highways that allow billboards—and this list hardly is exhaustive.

While there’s much one could quibble about in this description, I’ll focus on a few general comments. First, many of the post-60s consequences Prior describes could easily be accounted for by appealing to the nature of American culture—a free republic. While I’m as concerned (and maybe moreso) about the endless exploitation of sexuality for everything from car batteries to charitable giving, these types of issues stem more from a free society built upon laws than they do from the 60s revolution (one could easily and rightly add the failure of the church but that’s another subject). A republic allows its citizens (and businesses) to freely live, behave, and thrive as they wish within the law.

Second, another factor unmentioned by Prior but necessary to her description of social consequences of the 60s sexual revolution was the post-60s invention of the internet and all the high-tech gadgets with “pop-up ads” (computer screens, cell phones, tablets, etc.). The massive proliferation of this sexual filth can hardly be said to have spread so broadly and quickly apart from the internet and high-tech age which no one would argue is a result of the 60s sexual revolution.

Third, Prior rightly insists the sexual revolution “spread through popular culture, enacted by the masses” but strangely adds “and codified in law.” And just what part of the 60s revolution was codified in law? Free love has always been free love. There was no law against Woodstock then or now (albeit the Covid Pandemic might be an exception!). The only thing Prior mentions post-60s codified into law is abortion via Roe v Wade (1973). She writes, “Abortion wounds and kills, just as the sexual revolution that birthed abortion-on-demand wounds and kills” (Italics added). But what evidence exists the 60s sexual revolution either caused or birthed Roe v Wade? If there is evidence, Dr. Prior should produce it.

Instead by a 7-2 majority, Justice Harry Blackmun delivered the opinion for the Court arguing that within the Fourteenth Amendment is a fundamental “right to privacy” protecting a woman’s choice whether to have an abortion. For them, abortion-on-demand was a matter of the rule of law not the sexual revolution of the 1960s. (Disclaimer: while I am neither lawyer nor jurist, many legal experts vehemently question the Court’s decision as to whether a “right to privacy” is within the constitution or read into the constitution and consequently call for its judicial overturn. I stand squarely against Roe v Wade on moral grounds primarily and constitutional grounds secondarily). One thing seems certain: no evidence appears to exist Roe v Wade was birthed by the 1960s sexual revolution.

When Prior returns to describe the analogous nature between the 60s sexual revolution and systemic racism in our culture, she offers no real similarities apart from her raw assertion there exists similarities. For example, the sexual revolution “spread through popular culture . . . now as pervasive and inescapable as the pop-up ads on our computer screens . . . From myriad loudspeakers, it broadcasts the words and rhythms of pop-music erotica. And constantly, over the intellectual Muzak, comes the message sex will save you and libido make you free.” But where would we similarly find systemic racism like this in our culture? Do we have explicit acts of aggressive racism as pervasive and inescapable as the pop-up ads on our computer screens? Where are minorities openly, broadly, and undeniably racially treated unjustly? What institutions possess explicit racist policies?

In the end, Prior contradicts her own analogy: “If sexual sin can reshape a culture in our attitudes, laws, policies, values and beliefs in ways we can’t always see or recognize, so can the sin of racism” (Italics added). But hold on. Rather than argue on the basis of the unseen consequences of the sexual revolution, Prior rehearsed a litany of visible, tangible consequences she claims come from the 60s sexual revolution that we most certainly can both see and recognize. Now, however, she appears to claim its those unseen and unrecognizable consequences of the sexual revolution that’s similar to the unseen and unrecognizable consequences of racism’s sin. Her analogy becomes more confusing.

One final note. Whereas no law was enacted to establish and codify the 60s sexual revolution as a legal, official rule of law within our culture, there exists a legal trail of constitutional enactments within our republic to officially end racial policies, procedures, injustice, and discrimination not the least of which was a civil war costing hundreds of thousands of soldiers’ lives the overwhelming majority of whom were White. Were Whites complicit in a form of systemic racism? Yes. Was the church overwhelmingly complicit in racial discrimination? Yes. Yet we cannot forget it was both Whites and primarily White churches that rose up and corrected and eventually abolished the slave trade in the United States.

Were Jim Crow laws (mostly in the south) racially discriminatory, unjust, and contradictory to both our founding documents and ends to which we fought a bloody civil war? Yes. And a horrifying period of up to 80 years of such racial injustice cannot be swept under the rug as if it never took place. On the other hand, the 60s Civil Rights legislation took place. Now, however, codified into law are equal rights protections for all races, assuring dignity, justice, and due process regardless of skin color or ethnicity, and neither can that be overlooked and swept under the rug as if it never took place.

We are a republic; we exist by rule of law. But Prior apparently is dissatisfied with republicanism. Instead, she claims systemic racism exists but in ways we can’t always see or recognize. But since a republic by definition exists by rule of law, no republic can exist when one can’t see or recognize how the law has been breached. Tangible evidence must be seen, presented, and legally recognized. Subjective feeling, personal opinion, “lived experience,” anecdotal illustrations, and the like won’t work in a rule of law culture. It can’t work in a rule of law culture.

I wholeheartedly agree with Prior when she concludes, “Racism wounds and kills, too. All assaults against bearers of God’s image do.” I was born in a segregated south. I remember even as a little boy some of the horrible conservations about people “not like us.” As I grew older, and especially after I became a believer, those early boyhood notions about people “not like us” melted away. Moreover, I’ve dealt with racists—real racists—in the church. I recall in one church an older brother stopping me in the worship center and pointing to a Black family walking in said, “Those N****** are going to ruin our church.” I sat down beside him, looking him square in the eye, and said, “Brother J_____, you can’t talk like that in here. You just can’t.” I called him on Monday and went to visit him. We had a good talk, a productive talk. I was able to assist him in coming to honest terms with his sinful posture toward people “not like us.” His sin was not excused nor excusable. But he was a brother who desperately needed help understanding both people “not like us” but more importantly a correct view of biblical creation, anthropology, and redemption.

The fact is, we neither need nor desire to hunt for evidence of a social construct that we “can’t always see or recognize.” There’s plenty of visible, tangible, demonstrable racial prejudice for us to encounter, correct, and do our best to eliminate because there’s plenty of sinners with whom to deal.