Kimberlé Crenshaw is a left-leaning law professor at UCLA and Columbia University known for her work in “civil rights, black feminist legal theory, and race, racism, and the law.”  She is also the co-founder and executive director of the African American Policy Forum (AAPF), a think tank that has received nearly half of its funding from foundations (such as the Tides Foundation and the Ford Foundation) that have a history of supporting left-leaning causes.  
Crenshaw is the creator of intersectionality theory, a philosophical concept which asserts that discrimination directed against an individual will compound based on the number of factors that distance the person from the historical center of American socio-economic and political power (in the view of the theory, heterosexual white men). Intersectionality holds that an African American woman will face unique and greater discrimination than an African American male because she encounters both racism and sexism.  Critics have noted that a destructive form of identity politics has arisen from intersectionality, with an example being left-leaning Rolling Stone magazine podcast host Katie Halper who accused Hillary Clinton of unjustly using intersectionality, morphed into identity politics, as a weapon during the 2016 race for the Democratic presidential nomination to malign the working-class political outreach of rival Bernie Sanders.  
Crenshaw expressed strong opinions regarding several contestants running for president in 2020. She stated that former Democratic Vice President Joe Biden was “a remarkably elegant illustration of all that ails the Democratic Party’s bid to retake the White House in 2020” and that he was “an accommodating enabler in the regressive politics of race.”  She accused former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, another Democratic candidate, of “directing police to ride through our communities like slave patrols.”  And in a 2017 essay, shortly after President Donald Trump assumed office, she stated he was “a leader whose racist worldview is emblazoned at the base of his career in the same way that his name is plastered across his global real estate empire.”  But Crenshaw was supportive of the candidacy of U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), saying “We need someone who can take a hit, give one back and drop the mic. Liz does it!” 
Kimberlé Williams Crenshaw is a left-leaning law professor at UCLA and Columbia University. According to her biography on the Columbia Law School website, her areas of expertise are “civil rights, black feminist legal theory, and race, racism, and the law.” She earned her law degree from Harvard Law School in 1984 and her B.A. from Cornell University in 1981. 
She was part of what she has referred to as the “support team” for Anita Hill, a law professor who, during the 1991 U.S. Supreme Court confirmation hearing for Justice Clarence Thomas, accused the high court nominee of sexual harassment. 
In a 1989 paper Crenshaw presented the theory of “intersectionality,” the concept that discrimination directed against an individual will compound based on the number of factors that distance the person from the center of American socio-economic and political power (in the view of the theory, heterosexual white men). Crenshaw has said her original motive for developing intersectionality was to explain “the crack that women of color were falling into” because they faced both racial and gender discrimination, or two simultaneous types of discrimination making their challenge worse than a male of color facing only racism.  
The name refers to a metaphor for a traffic intersection where one lane might represent “race” and the perpendicular lane “gender.” An employer may assert that its hiring process is free of discrimination because white women and African American men can each successfully navigate their respective paths to employment. But intersectionality theory proposes another form of discrimination will still exist if African American women, who must navigate both paths simultaneously, cannot navigate the intersection to being hired.  
According to Crenshaw, activists working against race or gender discrimination often obtain a false sense of accomplishment because they don’t see the wreckage in the intersection: “What happens when an accident happens and the people who support each path can’t determine where the problem comes from?” 
One example she has cited is the families of African American women alleged to have been the victims of unjustifiable shootings by law enforcement who—in comparison to the families of African American males who may have experienced the same violence—had not received the same recognition and support:
The driving force behind #SayHerName was that so many of the families that lost women to police violence were solely in private mourning and not in public mourning. Effectively, they experienced two homicides — one was the homicide of the person, but then they also experienced the killing of the significance of the killing. Those deaths weren’t mattering to the wider Black community, and they weren’t mattering to the organized women’s community that was all about violence against women, except if it was state violence against women. It didn’t even really matter to the queer community. So many of the Black women who were killed were either lesbian, bi, or trans, and their deaths weren’t acknowledged by the wider LGBTQ+ movement. So there’s individuated mourning that isn’t part of a collective recognition of loss, and when you don’t have that, you don’t have the predicate for social action to interrupt the system that produced that loss. 
Kimberlé Crenshaw has told interviewers that intersectionality theory is misunderstood by its critics but has also implied that she embraces the practice of identity politics. An interviewer in 2018 asked Crenshaw to respond to left-leaning critics that accused intersectionality of feeding a “kind of identity politics that divides us more than it unites us” and distracts from “the real fight of class war.” 
Crenshaw accused these critics of misapplying her work:
Well, to be honest, for the past 10 years I haven’t said anything to a lot of this stuff. The one common thread that it represents is illiteracy; a fundamental refusal to engage in any serious way with the problems that intersectionality was initially articulated to address. So when I hear a critique of intersectionality that isn’t about how the framework failed the projects that it was designed to address; when I don’t hear Black women plaintiffs; when I don’t hear Latinx people who were excluded from domestic violence shelters because they didn’t speak English; when I don’t hear about how the marriage equality discourse in the U.S. leaves behind trans people and poor lesbians; when the critique is not grounded in material, sociopolitical injustices, I’m just not that interested in it! Because they’re not interested in what intersectionality was initially designed to do!
But in a May 2019 essay for The New Republic, a left-of-center opinion journal, Crenshaw drew a parallel between left-leaning critics of identity politics and the coalition of white southerners who perpetuated the lynching of African Americans just after the Civil War:
The repudiation of Reconstruction’s initial promise was launched in shockingly brutal fashion, via a burgeoning series of massacres and lynchings, carried out by white vigilantes and law enforcement officials alike against Black people. As Southern Redeemers worked to put down burgeoning alliances between Blacks and whites—a coalition that foreshadowed precisely the class-based politics now rhetorically championed by left and liberal critics of “identity politics”—Black bodies served as the scapegoats; their ritual sacrifice permitted postbellum whites to reunite across class and region. [emphasis added]. 
Addressing intersectionality’s critics on the left and right, Crenshaw told an interviewer in 2018 that the notoriety means her ideas are important:
People have blamed everything — from Brexit and violence against people of color to Donald Trump’s election — on intersectionality and identity politics. 
What’s exciting is that I really don’t remember a time when a political academic concept generated by people of color — and particularly a concept that is the home of women of color — has gotten this much elite attention. There’s a way in which the mad attention on intersectionality by the left and the right — the fight over what it means, the fight over how it gets deployed, who gets to use it — is a recognition that we’re sitting on some valuable conceptual real estate, and we just need to double down and figure out how to develop and protect it. 
Left-leaning critics have stated that a singular focus on intersectionality creates a destructive form of identity politics. As one example, supporters of Bernie Sanders in his failed attempt to defeat Hillary Clinton for the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination have cited identity politics as a weapon used against Sanders. In December 2016 Katie Halper, left-leaning filmmaker and co-host of Rolling Stone magazine’s “Useful Idiots” podcast, wrote “only slightly” in jest that “critics within and around the established wing of the Democratic Party have painted Bernie Sanders as a misogynistic, racist, heteronormative, cis, male, pseudo-anti-establishment, actually-totally establishment politician motivated by a humongous ego and a desire to thwart progress and the election of the first female president in US history.”  
Halper placed blame for this with the identity politics practiced by Clinton supporters:
The problem is, for many of the so called intersectionalists who support Clinton and reject Sanders, intersectionality and identity politics include everything except for class. They are so tone deaf about class that they hear the “working class” as a white monolith, as if working class people of color or LGBT people or immigrants don’t exist. Yes, Sanders has spoken about the unique challenges of reaching the white working class, something that would make sense to any intersectionalist who thinks that white supremacy is a real thing. But his use of the word white in this specific context is just more proof that his use of working class without “white,” includes people of all backgrounds. Sanders’ critique of inequality, and his attack on the one percent, is one that champions the rights of people from all backgrounds. 
Halper also accused Clinton of stoking the identity politics conflict:
Back in February , Clinton delivered a speech in the suburbs of Las Vegas where she explicitly pitted economic policies against “progress” for women, immigrants, people of color, and LGBT. In an obvious dig at Sanders, who the Clinton campaign was deriding as a “single issue candidate,” Clinton asked, rhetorically, “Not everything is about an economic theory, right? If we broke up the big banks tomorrow — and I will, if they deserve it, if they pose a systemic risk, I will — would that end racism?” When the audience responded “No!” Clinton took the call and response and really ran with it, asking “Would that end sexism? Would that end discrimination against the LGBT community? Would that make people feel more welcoming to immigrants overnight? Would that solve our problem with voting rights, and Republicans who are trying to strip them away from people of color, the elderly, and the young?”
Intersectionality and race are generally the filters through which Crenshaw expresses public opinions regarding politics.
President Donald Trump
In a 2017 essay Crenshaw described President Donald Trump as “a leader whose racist worldview is emblazoned at the base of his career in the same way that his name is plastered across his global real estate empire.” 
“Just as the civil rights movement was hailed at the time as America’s Second Reconstruction,” predicted Crenshaw, “it’s probably long past time to ask whether the Trump White House is presiding over a Second Redemption—the odious 1877 social compact that won Rutherford B. Hayes the presidency and established the Jim Crow regime across the postbellum South.” 
From the canyons of Wall Street to the banks of the Potomac, a cry of rejoicing went forth. The painful, violent legacy of white supremacy had been repealed, in one miraculous fell swoop; the guilt-averse white majority and the grievance-prone Black minority could come together as one, in a blessed state of ur-American forgetfulness, and get down to business at last!
As it happened, the shelf life of post-racialism turned out to be far shorter than its cheerleaders supposed. A mere eight years later, white voters tossed the historic breakthrough of 2008 into the dustbin of history, alongside other half-digested political trendlets, like “the year of the woman” and “the peace dividend.” The symbolic breakthrough of Obama’s election has plainly given way to a terrifying new political order that is anything but post-racial. 
In a series of Twitter posts referencing a February 2020 Democratic presidential primary debate, Crenshaw expressed support for U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) and strong criticism of left-leaning multi-billionaire and former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg. 
One issue was a so-called “stop and frisk” policing policy in place in New York City during the era when Bloomberg was the city’s mayor. Bloomberg had previously apologized for the policy and did so again during the debate. But just prior to the debate, a 2015 audio recording of Bloomberg defending the policing policy was released. On the recording Bloomberg stated that non-white young men accounted for “95 percent” of the city’s “murders and murderers and murder victims.” 
Warren told Bloomberg he needed a “different apology” and sharply criticized him regarding the policy:
“It targeted communities of color. It targeted black and brown men from the beginning, and if you want to issue a real apology, then the apology has to start with the intent of the plan as it was put together.” 
Warren also challenged Bloomberg over allegations that he had made inappropriate statements to female employees at his company and demanded that the businessman release those women from non-disclosure agreements they had allegedly signed. 
Shortly afterward, Crenshaw cheered on Warren in three February 20, 2020 Twitter statements:
Come through @ewarren come THROUGH! He cannot apologize his way out of the trauma he caused, directing police to ride through our communities like slave patrols, “throwing” countless Black & Latino men against the wall to “fight crime.” Speak that truth to power! #TeamWarren
So long as he silences former employees by non-disclosure agreements, his candidacy should be a complete non-starter for anyone remotely supportive of #MeToo. Between his record on sexual harassment and racial profiling, he shouldn’t be allowed anywhere near the Dem nomination.
That @ewarren is being silenced while Mike Bloomberg buys his own megaphone tells us everything about gender, wealth and politics. If this doesn’t change immediately we won’t be prepared for 2020. We need someone who can take a hit, give one back and drop the mic. Liz does it!
A Politico analysis of the debate stated Warren’s speaking time had led all debate participants:
The Massachusetts senator enjoyed the most talking time during Wednesday’s Las Vegas debate, followed by the other female candidate on the stage, Amy Klobuchar. Warren launched an early strike on Bloomberg over the unknown number of non-disclosure agreements he has with people who have accused him of harassment as well as allegations that he has called women “fat broads” and “horse-faced lesbians.” 
In an August 2019 essay for The New Republic, Crenshaw wrote that former Democratic Vice President and 2020 presidential candidate Joe Biden was “a remarkably elegant illustration of all that ails the Democratic Party’s bid to retake the White House in 2020.” Citing Biden’s record as a U.S. Senator of voting with many conservative Republicans on issues such as criminal justice policy and against forced school integration through busing, she wrote that “Biden was an accommodating enabler in the regressive politics of race.” 
Biden has yet to accept any genuine responsibility for how he helped preside over a process that depicted women—African American women—as conniving bottom-feeders. As chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee in 1991, Biden actively enabled the humiliation and stigmatization of Anita Hill in that terrible spectacle of patriarchal impunity. He failed to call the multiple existing witnesses who could corroborate Hill’s testimony, while granting future Justice Clarence Thomas the ability to testify both before and after his accuser. From his chairman’s perch, meanwhile, Biden took a sharply inquisitorial line of questioning toward Hill, and reassured the country that Thomas’s character was beyond reproach. 
African American Policy Forum
Crenshaw is the executive director and co-founder of the African American Policy Forum (AAPF), a 501(c)(3) organization that seeks to advance intersectionality theory and policies. A donor solicitation atop many of the organization’s web pages states: “Donate to AAPF and Support Intersectionality in Action.” 
AAPF runs several intersectionality programs. Examples include #SayHerName” and “Black Girls Matter,” which address allegations of excessive law enforcement violence and excessive school discipline directed at African American women and girls.  
In the days following the 2016 election of President Donald Trump, AAPF responded with a program titled “Social Justice SOS.” It was described by the AAPF website as an effort “try and make sense of the surprising and distressing election results, and to discuss the implications for progressive movements.”  A preamble to a transcript of the webinar event declares that it “illuminates ideas and strategies that are now proving central and demonstrates the kind of intersectional, cross-issue thinking that is coming to define resistance to the Trump Administration.” 
Keith Ellison—then a Democratic congressman from Minnesota, and later that state’s attorney general and deputy chair of the Democratic National Committee—wrote the forward to the transcript, which includes an explicit call to political organizing:
If this election has shown us anything, it is that we must organize like never before.
We must organize because there are millions of men and women in our prisons. We must organize because millions of people still cannot afford their health care. Because black women and men are shot in the street by police. Because factories are closing, students graduate with crippling debt, women lack full access to abortion, and wages are too low for working families to get by. We must organize because there are communities across the country who blame each other for problems caused by corporate power, unregulated capitalism, and a history of economic and social exclusion.
We know the solution: a living wage, debt-free college, and respect for all, including people of color. It is protecting our planet and our health, and loving our neighbors. In order to make our dreams a reality, we must build a Movement that unites people across lines of identity, class, race and gender. Let’s not withdraw into separate groups, let all of us stand for each of us. As Audre Lorde reminds us, there is no such thing as a single-issue struggle because we do not live single-issue lives.
Building this Movement will not be easy. But failing to act is not an option—our lives depend on it. 
The seminar included several discussions analyzing the demographic voter details of the presidential election and providing advice regarding how to resist or reverse the outcome. 
Speaker Mary Frances Berry of the University of Pennsylvania addressed the topic “What’s the story behind the electoral college?” and concluded that “Protest is an essential ingredient in politics” and advised listeners to “continue to protest relentlessly” when “Trump promotes harmful policies.” 
Heidi Hartmann, president of the Institute for Women’s Policy Research, spoke on the topic “Is there anything new about how white women voted in this election?” Denouncing the election of Trump as a “plea for more racial superiority,” she advised that the Democratic Party needed to pivot away from appeals to class warfare and instead focus more on intersectionality and identity politics: 
It’s very disappointing to have the Democratic Party response focus on the white male working class. That’s not going to get us anywhere. Certainly, it won’t help win elections. 
According to tax records covering donor years 2007 through 2017, total revenues for the African American Policy Forum during the era were slightly more than $3.8 million.  Entries in the donation recordkeeping service FoundationSearch reveal that $1.8 million of this funding (47 percent) came from nine foundations with a history of supporting left-leaning causes and organizations: the Tides Foundation ($840,000), the Ford Foundation ($575,000), the Open Society Foundations—formerly “Open Society Institute” ($100,000), the Foundation to Promote Open Society ($75,000), the New York Women’s Foundation ($62,500), the Schott Foundation for Public Education ($62,000), the Deer Creek Foundation ($50,000), the Public Welfare Foundation ($20,000), and the W.K. Kellogg Foundation ($20,000).