Earlier this month, Dispatch senior editor David French endorsed “The Conservative Case Against Banning Critical Race Theory.”

It was unfortunate, to say the least. But it wasn’t exactly surprising, given that Donald Trump was the catalyst for French’s evolution from reliable conservative to Bulwarkish “conservative.”

And, like French’s endorsement of that TIME piece, his recent essay on the subject of Critical Race Theory was disappointing, but not surprising:

Who’s denying that there was racism in our past and that it persists in our present? Suggesting that not taking personal ownership of racism in our country’s past is akin to “denying the consequences of centuries of racist harm” is rather disingenuous, no?

French concludes:

Regardless of my ideology, the objective is justice. It’s not “conservative” justice or “progressive” justice. It’s simply justice. So if my ideology leads me astray, and the solutions I propose are inadequate to the enormity of the task, it’s my moral obligation to rethink my philosophical frame.

Finally, it is vital to approach the immense challenge of racial justice with an extraordinary amount of humility. Christians should not be so easily triggered by words that sound “progressive” or which they believe might be “inspired by CRT.” A movement that long derided the “snowflakes” on the other side now reacts as if allegedly offensive pastoral word choice is a microaggression all its own.

Moreover, no one person—no matter how intellectually or spiritually formidable—has discerned the single best way for our nation to “act justly” after so very many years of oppression. So approaching this topic requires grace. Every one of us will be wrong to some degree.

But even in the midst of all this complexity, some things are still clearly true. We still live with the legacy of the discriminatory structures our forefathers created. Our obligation to seek justice does not depend on a finding of personal fault. Christians must be open to truth from any source. And there is nothing—absolutely nothing—“conservative” about denying the reality of the consequences of centuries of intentional, racist harm.

But what’s “conservative” about giving credibility to the decidedly unjust tenets of Critical Race Theory? Because that’s definitely what French has done, if not explicitly in this particular piece, but in his support for Critical Race Theory education in schools.

This sounds a bit CRT-ish, if we’re being honest:

There’s nothing inherently wrong with confronting racial injustice. In fact, it’s incredibly important to do so. But there are ways to do it without looking to intersectionality for guidance.

French himself used to understand that:

French gains nothing by lending credence to Critical Race Theory, but he loses a great deal.

In fact, many on “the other side” persist in sowing the seeds of racial discord because they thrive on chaos and unrest.