For most of my adult life I have understood the portion of Martin Luther King, Jr’s “I have a Dream” speech wherein he says that he dreams that one day his children will be judged by the content of their character and not by the color of their skin to be the end goal, the aspiration, and the victory in the fight for racial equality and social justice. After watching multiple interviews, including his Ted Talk, I’ve observed that Coleman Hughes has essentially ignored the situational context of Dr. King’s words and reframed the aspiration of colorblindness as the only legitimate foundation for public policy and moral interpersonal behavior today. While he acknowledges the persistence of racial bias (calling it stupid), he mischaracterizes the opposition to colorblindness by diversity, inclusion, and equity (DEI) advocates as neo-racist. As a former DEI worker, I don’t know anyone on the left who would disagree that colorblindness remains the ultimate goal, in the sense that our race has no bearing on our treatment, opportunities, nor outcomes, using measurable economic, health, and social outcomes as a metric for how we are doing. However, some would argue that it is too soon to center colorblindness in every public policy decision. But I do think Coleman has a point worthy of discussion.
I think Coleman is correct in his assertion that socio-economic status is a more accurate metric to determine government-based policies to help people succeed and for the most part, that is already in place. When using poverty as a measure, programs do in fact capture a disproportionate number of black and brown people because they remain disproportionately poorer. However, Coleman rarely addresses why this remains the case except to blame single family homes, inattentive parents and neighborhood violence. I would argue that many black people remain impoverished in large part due to public policy decisions in housing, school funding, policing, and rampant individual discrimination, so I differ from Coleman in that regard. That said, I’ve seen the poverty-based strategy at work in government-funded Trio Programs like Upward Bound. Entry to the six Trio Programs is based on socio-economic factors like family income and first-generation college status and so students in these programs come from all racial backgrounds and that’s a good thing.
I personally benefited from race-based Affirmative Action programs because in the 1970’s there were very real race-based barriers to college and career opportunities. Opponents, like Coleman and conservatives, often fail to acknowledge that Affirmative Action did not lower admission standards or job qualifications, but it provided preference to those whose race had historically (and legally) prevented their access. There were no quotas, but public schools and employers were required to give preference to women and people of color over white males if they met the qualifications for entry. The purpose was to right a historic and legal policy of discrimination based on race and gender. What Affirmative Action did was provide competition to white men who had enjoyed a monopoly on the best schools and the best jobs based on their race and social connections.
I do agree with Coleman that the days of legal discrimination have since passed and that Affirmative Action came to give unwarranted and certainly unnecessary preference to the sons and daughters of highly educated minority professionals. For example, I was able to provide my children with every educational and economic advantage when they were young. Since times have indeed changed, absent the covert bigotry of an individual college or job recruiter, they did not need to rely on Affirmative Action for their college admission or job. In essence, the extra points given to them by admission policies seem unfair when compared to a black child born to more dire circumstances. As a DEI professional, I made this argument on multiple occasions. In fact, later arguments to keep Affirmative Action in place centered on the educational benefits of diversity as opposed to access to opportunity for low-income students. The problem was that the stigma of admitting or hiring “less qualified” candidates remained.
The problem is that opponents to diversity hiring conveniently ignore years of public policy and poverty that limit the educational opportunities of women and people of color while also limiting their opportunity to enter spaces that would provide them connections and resume building experiences. Coleman sites the over-representation of black men in the NBA as an example of merit-based entry without regard to race. But is it really? I would argue that the NBA and the NFL are over-represented by black males, not because they are inherently better at the game, but because the opportunity structure in the country funneled their energies into these easily accessible sports as opposed to academic endeavors.
I think a lot of people struggle with Coleman’s insistence to use colorblindness as a guide for all public policy decision-making right now. His stance seems to ignore the evidence of the lingering harms caused by historically race-based discrimination. While he does acknowledge slavery and Jim Crowe as immoral and harmful, he fails to fully acknowledge their lingering effects. And worse, he fails to acknowledge how the pseudo-science of eugenics infected the national mindset with a belief in white superiority and black inferiority. It is naive to expect average people to change their way of thinking and behaving just because it is the right thing to do. When confronted by prominent conservative comments blaming the Maryland bridge collapse on DEI and pointing their fingers at the black governor and black major as examples of DEI, he simply characterized them as “stupid” and possibly racist. He fails to connect the dots that people in positions of power and policy making continue to view blackness as inherently inferior.
Because of the continuing negative mindset regarding the character and intellect of black people among those who make policy and those who put policy into practice, I think we must also make laws that ensure that those who violate colorblindness in their implementation of non-discriminatory public policies should be held civilly accountable. There are many examples of non-compliance with colorblind policies. There are police who over-monitor blacks, ticket them, or brutalize them. There are judges who issue harsher sentences to black perpetrators compared to white perpetrators for the same crime. They, like police should be sanctioned or removed. Banks who make it more difficult for blacks to access capital or who target blacks for sub-prime loans should be sued. The list of individuals violating the principles of colorblindness with impunity is long. Coleman never addresses the penalty for such harmful actions that will have lasting negative affects on victims and their families.
I’m glad we are having this conversation about the merits of colorblindness in 2024. I still see it as an aspiration. I just think it is important to address the topic with an eye to history, practical applications, and human nature.