Not today. Jim Crow Laws and bans on Interracial marriage are no longer in existence.
Those were the only laws with a racial bias?
There's certainly other laws that had an underpinning of racial biases baked in (in abstracted ways that allowed deniability) after the end of Jim Crow. The "War on Drugs" comes to mind.
For instance, the sentencing difference for different forms of cocaine use (despite it being the same illegal drug involved) was certainly one we could point to.
Another would be the sentencing disparities for marijuana dealing for "behind closed doors" vs. "open air markets".
However, from a legislative standpoint, I think we've corrected for that as much as possible from 1992 until present day...short of actually decriminalizing crime (which is a bad idea, and hasn't been working out in places where they've tried "soft launches" of that approach), not sure what more there is to do in that regard.
Although it should be pointed out that (since the sub-topic was critical race theory), that the way material is taught has to check a few different boxes off in order to be truly considered "critical race theory"... that is, if we want go off of the more specific version outlined by the original authors on the subject like Derrick Bell a few others...
While teaching that many of the institutions had some racist underpinnings and racist pasts is one component of that, it also needs to check off a few other philosophical boxes in addition to that in order to actually be CRT.
1) It needs to also teach any
neutral system is inherently racist if the end results of that system end in any disparity by race. For instance, things that most people see as good, like Brown v. Board of education which put an end to racial segregation in public schools, Derrick Bell said was actually a bad thing because it was upholding the broader institution the current public school system which he felt was just a guise for racial power since white kids were outperforming black kids.
2) It also needs to teach that people have a duty to tear down any system (even if it's neutral system on paper) if the system produces any disparity in outcomes (he and a few of the other original authors of the subject often cite capitalism and the meritocracy...and one - can't remember if it was Bell or one of the others - also cited private land ownership)
That's why I've urged some folks not to play too fast and loose with the accusation of "They're teaching CRT". That's the same mistake many conservatives made with accusations of "Socialism", where they'll find one or two common threads, and then attempt to give it the moniker, when it fact, the designation they're trying give it encompasses a whole lot more than just the one or two commonalities they've identified.
For example, when they've tried to point to any form of welfare as "socialism", when in fact, socialism entails a whole lot more than social welfare policies.
Same applies here, "crying wolf" by finding the common component of "accusing the country of having a racist past" and using that as justification for the accusation of "CRT" would be a similar mistake. Both logically, as well as strategically...because when those rare examples do show up where something actually is checking all the boxes, nobody's going to take the accusation seriously if people just got done calling everything under the sun "CRT"
