Race-Blind Policies

BIBLIOGRAPHY

In a race-blind (or synonymously color-blind) society, persons of all ethnic backgrounds are supposedly viewed as equal and have access to the entitlements of a meritocracy. It is a theoretical position that gradually emerged in the post-1960s civil rights era and has become a contentious topic in both academic and social policy circles. Many advocates of race-blind policies, but not all, tend to be from the conservative-right school of thought. They adhere to the view that “racelessness” will help bring about equal opportunity for all and is ultimately good for society. Moreover, they view overt racism as an issue from the past that does not figure in the imagination of the majority of Americans. Hence, there is no longer a need for affirmative action policies (or positive discrimination) that were designed socially to engineer greater equality for minority cultural groups—in the United States, primarily African Americans, American Indians, and Hispanics— that had historically been underrepresented in key institutions such as education, law, the media, and politics. However, one could argue that any group considered as a “people of color” could come under an affirmative action mandate.

Race should not be viewed as the only criterion for affirmative action policies. The main beneficiaries of such policy initiatives have been white women. However, race is arguably the key factor in determining the push for race-blind policies. Those who are most vociferous in advocating race-blind policies tend to focus on race being the salient factor in creating what is often deemed reverse discrimination. Arguably, one of the key personalities in race-blind policies is Ward Connerly, who made his name after being appointed to the University of California Board of Regents by Republican governor Pete Wilson in 1993. Connerly is largely acknowledged as responsible for Proposition 209, which outlawed racial preferences in the California university system in November 1996. Ironically, Connerly professes to be of one-fourth African ancestry, and his opposition to racial preferences in admission to universities or to employment, which gained widespread support in the 1990s, shows no sign of diminishing in the 2000s. Indeed, writers of all hues such as Shelby Steele, Ann Coulter, David Horowitz, Dinesh D’Souza, and Thomas Sowell, to name a few, have provided ideological support for Connerly’s position as probably the preeminent anti-affirmative action proponent.

Interestingly, some conservatives employ Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s perspective on race to argue for race-blind policies, arguing that King wanted his children to be judged by the content of their character and not by the color of their skin. However, it could be contended that race-blind advocates have taken King’s perspective out of context. It would be wrong to suggest, for example, that he envisioned a society devoid of color or that his children would not be seen as African American. Rather, he wanted a society that did not discriminate on the grounds of race, as had been the case for centuries through the African American experience of enslavement, segregation, and second-class citizenship. To suggest that King did not favor affirmative action to provide a fairer playing field is tantamount to not comprehending the civil rights movement. In this sense, there had to be some form of institutionalized redress for centuries of systemic exclusion based on one’s racialized identity.

Contemporary advocates for race-blind policies contend that institutions that favor race-based preferences actually do harm to the person of color by stigmatizing the person with the “affirmative action” label. The argument is that the person has gained his or her place in the university or employment sphere on unmeritocratic principles. For commentators like Shelby Steele, race-preferential treatment actually does more harm than good. Moreover, Steele argues that racism is no longer a relevant factor in the experience of African Americans. For him it is a matter of applying one’s individual talent to the task of achievement in society. Race should not enter the equation when it comes to getting ahead in life.

Criticism of the race-blind school of thought has been constant and ever-present. One of the key opponents of the color-blind approach is sociologist Eduardo Bonilla-Silva. He argues forcefully that it is simply another form of ideological racism on behalf of those who benefit from the practice of racialized discrimination. To be sure, individuals such as Steele and Connerly, from historically disadvantaged racial groups, are personally benefiting greatly from their anti-affirmative action points of view. What they oppose, it could be said, is what they most benefit from. Some critics see race-blind advocates as persons wanting to shed every vestige of their ancestral past that identifies them as a “person of color” or as an African American. Others claim that the Katrina hurricane tragedy in Louisiana in 2006 all but confirms the reality of race in North America and continues to be a salient factor in the life chances of many millions born into a cycle of essentially racialized poverty. When millions viewed the tragedy on television screens across the world it was obvious that the Katrina hurricane exposed both race and class in relation to the African American experience. Moreover, if one considers the criminal justice system and how defendants and prisoners continue to be grossly overrepresented by African American males, there is certainly food for thought in considering race as a major factor in the life chances of many.

In short, critics of the race-blind perspective contend that there is still too much social significance in the determining factor of race for North America to suddenly become color-blind in finding methods that ensure equality of opportunity. One only has to read King’s books carefully to realize that his vision of a “beloved community” meant, in relation to the reality of race, being aware of the past while carefully monitoring the future via affirmative action policies. There is a strong case for a color-conscious affirmative action initiative that offers equal opportunity without relinquishing fairness in the process. To put it another way, some would suggest that not to consider race as a factor in determining life chances is to suggest cancer will go away if we simply ignore it. Although Proposition 209 has gained momentum, most universities still employ affirmative action, but now it has become based more on one’s overall socioeconomic standing rather than one factor such as race or gender. In the latter part of the 2000s, a more nuanced approach to equality of opportunity is being thought through by university administrations.

SEE ALSO Affirmative Action; African Americans; Civil Rights Movement, U.S.; Diversity; Equal Opportunity; King, Martin Luther, Jr.; Race-Conscious Policies; Stigma; University, The; Whites

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bonilla-Silva, Eduardo. 2003. Racism without Racists: Color-Blind Racism and the Persistence of Racial Inequality in the United States. New York: Rowman and Littlefield.

Christian, Mark. 2000. Multiracial Identity: An International Perspective. New York: St. Martin’s.

King, Martin Luther, Jr. 1967. Where Do We Go from Here: Chaos or Community? Boston: Beacon.

Pincus, Fred L. 2003. Reverse Discrimination: Dismantling the Myth. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner.

Steele, Shelby. 2006. White Guilt: How Blacks and Whites Together Destroyed the Promise of the Civil Rights Era. New York: HarperCollins.

Mark Christian