Third Way: Liberal Perspectives on Colorblindness
Coleman Hughes and john mcwhorter - ted Talks/the glenn show
Since liberals are more inclined towards moral relativist approaches to policy and solving problems, avoiding universal doctrines, and instead focusing on pragmatism, it seems that “colorblindness” as an absolutist, inviolable principle to abide by when considering Black social and political issues is counterintuitive for one who would identify as liberal. Nevertheless, the theory behind the doctrine itself can be attractive to liberal thinkers looking for good solutions to contemporary issues. So, while some of the colorblind thinkers that we will discuss might be properly labeled “conservative,” they will still be discussed, alongside color-conscious perspectives, since they can be presented in a way that is consistent with the liberal worldview.
The staunchest, and perhaps most prominent, advocate for colorblindness today is Coleman Hughes. In a Ted Talk, Hughes presented his case for a colorblind society. He clarified that “I don’t see color” is not the correct approach, since it comes off as ignorant and dismisses race entirely, which is impossible. Instead, he says, colorblindness means “I try to treat people without regard to race.”
He stresses in this talk that it is fine to target racial inequalities, but it should not be done via race-based means. Instead, by acting on the basis of class, Black Americans will be disproportionately affected in a positive way. “Class is almost always a better proxy for true disadvantage than race,” he said. Moreover, by applying this principle nobody gets helped, or hurt, because of biological factors beyond their control.
However, Hughes’s thesis faces a serious challenge when realizing that evidence shows, specifically when related to race-based affirmative action, that class is not a good proxy for race. That is because, despite the disproportionality by ratio, there are vastly more white Americans who are considered to be lower income than Black Americans. Even though Black Americans might disproportionately benefit from class-based policies, this proxy approach does little to narrow the gap.
John McWhorter is less absolute in his desire for colorblindness. “I am not as much a partisan of colorblindness as many people would think,” he said. “I know it's where the future has to be, but I have a very hard time applying it in the present tense.”
In accordance with how a liberal might examine the issue, McWhorter also questioned the use of terms such as “racism,” “institutional racism,” and “anti-racism,” pondering that perhaps “more of those terms are floating around making it hard for us to talk to each other now than before.” Instead, he expressed a wish for thinking through practicality as opposed to semantic language such as “colorblindness” — a term he finds “awkward.” Yet he still argues against color-conscious initiatives, noting what he believes are the adverse effects of race-based affirmative action on other minority groups, such as Jews and Asians.
Jamelle Bouie argues for color-consciousness. He notes that certain racial distinctions in America, such as with Black Americans, comes from their subordination, and believes that we cannot “ameliorate a system of inequality without reference or attention to the social relations produced by that system of inequality.”
His point is straightforward. We cannot ignore the problem and try to solve it at the same time. We cannot address a concern while also circumventing it. “The way to address [racism], to ameliorate it, is to at least take note of and respond to the social relations that structured and continue to structure its ongoing existence.” Race-consciousness, according to Bouie, is necessary to counteract the race-conscious racism that produced modern inequities and discrepancies.
While contemporary thinkers provide valuable insight regarding issues surrounding colorblindness and color-consciousness, there is a reason why Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was such a brilliant leader in the struggle for civil rights. He understood the nuances of the issues facing Black communities and, like true liberals seek to do, promoted a variety of ways to fix the issue: from government intervention to community development from within, and from class-based solutions to race-based solutions.
In his book Where Do We Go from Here: Chaos or Community?, Dr. King made it clear that having a strict colorblind approach is unacceptable: “Giving a man his due may often mean giving him special treatment. I am aware of the fact that this has been a troublesome concept for many liberals, since it conflicts with their traditional ideal of equal opportunity and equal treatment of people according to their individual merits. But this is a day which demands new thinking and the reevaluation of old concepts. A society that has done something special against the Negro for hundreds of years must now do something special for him, in order to equip him to compete on a just and equal basis.”
Dr. King also expressed the importance of “group identity,” not in an exclusive sense but rather in order to achieve a “consciousness” that can help Black Americans “participate more meaningfully at all levels of the life of our nation.”
As for gap-closing measures such as affirmative action, Dr. King’s mindset is that of one who would likely support such initiatives. When discussing education, he explained that helping Black Americans academically is not enough. The objective is also “to close the gap between their educational levels and those of whites. If this does not happen, as Negroes advance educationally, whites will be moving ahead even more rapidly.” On top of this, Dr. King championed Operation Breadbasket, which explicitly sought to increase the proportional representation of Black workers and Black-owned products.
We have discussed various perspectives liberals might entertain when it comes to the legitimacy of certain measures towards equality. Disagreements surrounding specific measures may be valid. But as Dr. King teaches us, liberal thinkers should avoid needlessly closing doors on potential approaches and solutions. Instead, it should be ensured that the possibilities remain wide open.