One taboo in DEI training sessions and discussions is to invoke racial colorblindness. Racial colorblindness is the idea that people should not be treated differently based on their race or perceived race.
There are good reasons to be cautious about invoking that term. But racial colorblindness has its merits. It represents a defensible aspiration for how we as individuals and as a polity should treat people
The objections to racial colorblindness
DEI trainers object to invoking racial colorblindness for both practical and philosophical reasons. Most of those objections have merit and deserve to be acknowledged. They can probably summed up thusly:
Invoking racial colorblindness denies or minimizes existing racial disparities and existing racism. And implementing "colorblind" policies would militate against recognizing the many problems that racially marginalized people face on account of their racial marginalization, possibly in a way similar to that statement that the law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges--or, in a more a propos rendering, "separate accommodations are okay as long as they're equal."
A further objection pertains to how invoking "racial colorblindness" is a conversation stopper. Often--or at least sometimes--it is invoked at inappropriate times. For example, if someone is relating a personal encounter with racism, the issue of "racial colorblindness" is irrelevant, or at best only tangential, to the discussion. For that to be true, the person who invokes "racial colorblindness" need not be insincere. While I strongly suspect that the person who says "I treat people the same and don't care if they're black, brown, or polka dotted" would be exactly the type who woud treat polka dotted people differently, the person could be telling the truth and it would still be a conversation stopper.
A final objection is that invoking "racial colorblindness" is akin to repeating a meaningless shibboleth. whatever the merits of the underlying idea. The objection goes like this. It may be legitimate to consider the animating philosophy behind "racial colorblindness" when assessing policies like affirmative action or when addressing problems like hate crimes, disparate impact, and poverty. But those concerns are all so complicated that simply saying "racial colorblindness" works more as a tribal signal to people who already agree with you. I have less sympathy for this last objection, but I have to admit that saying "racial colorblindness" without saying or doing anything else probably just antagonizes people and closes off conversations in much the same way as many of the DEI-adjacent slogans I like to criticize.
The case for "racial colorblindness"
Those objections are good, and despite my criticisms of the DEI mentality, I'm not personally on board with a strict "racially colorblind" approach to policy. But I don't believe "racial colorblindness" is beyond-the-pale wrong.
A defensible aspiration
For one thing, someone can legitimately aspire to create a "racially colorblind" society. Or if "create" is too ambitious, maybe we can say that someone can legitimately hope for a "racially colorblind" society. It can be a goal to which we can aspire--perhaps not the only goal, but one goal among many.
I'm not sure we want lose that as a goal. If we do, what do we replace it with? A struggle of groups against groups? A leveraging of power, status, and advantage based on the caste one is born into? I strongly suspect that in such a world, members of currently marginalized groups probably wouldn't fare very well.
Critics of "racial colorblindness" might say that that's the situation already and we might as well lose the pretext that "racial colorblindness" means anything more than a denial of reality. In my casual experience, that seems to be the most common criticism against "racial colorblindness." Most opponents to the term who I've met or read or heard speak focus on why it isn't accurate and perhaps hasn't been since "race" emerged as a construct. They don't seem to argue against the ideal.
The critics might say the ideal can never be achieved in our lifetime. So instead of waiting for a new post-racial millennium that even our great grandchildren will never see, we should shelve the ideal and focus on other things.
I concede that a colorblind society won't arrive soon. Expecting an expeditious erasure of all invidious racial distinctions is foolhardy. But surely some progression to that end can happen and has happened. Or if it cannot happen, certainly retrogression can. Otherwise, what's the use of DEI trainings beyond protecting employers from lawsuits?
I'm sure some do argue against the ideal--and not just the practicalities--of racial colorblindness. I don't know their argument well. But I'm sure they have a good point or two to make. But until I'm convinced otherwise, I'll continue to believe racial colorblindness deserves a seat at the table.
A presumption for to public policy
At the very least, racial colorblindness is a good presumption for public policy. It's probably a good idea to presume that the laws we pass and the policies we adopt be facially colorblind. That's especially true when we're talking about wielding the power of the state. The same power that's used for your (I assume) good purposes might be appropriated later for (let's assume) bad purposes. Take the prototypical no good truly evil malignantly narcissistic and boorish president and imagine what he might succeed in doing without the limitations of the racially colorblind presumption.
I say that it's a good presumption and not an imperative. Presumptions can be rebutted. If a situation is so dire or if members of a certain racial group (for example) are so disadvantaged, then maybe that's evidence for going against the presumption. I'm not sure what standard I'd advocate for the rebuttal. I guess it depends on the circumstance. But the argument ought to be made.
Even if you disagree that the presumption is a good thing, it's the way things are done in the U.S. The courts might dismantle any effort to pass legislation or implement policies that don't try to rebut that presumption, regardless of how morally justified you find those policies. The courts tend to look at explicit racial distinctions in the law with high levels of scrutiny. You could say, "the courts shouldn't do that." I disagree. But even if I agreed, the fact is that they do indeed do that. And you might not want to expend all the resources and energy necessary to put something in place only to have it terminated.
And for what it's worth, I've noticed that DEI trainers appeal to the racially colorblind presumption when it's convenient for their purposes. To counter the "myth" that anti-discrimination laws protect only special categories of people, the trainers will point out they protect all people. A white person can file suit if they're denied a public accommodation because they're white, just like a person of color can. A violent crime against a white person based on animus against white people can lead to a hate-crime sentence enhancement, just like what would happen if a person of color be attacked by a white nationalist. The "protected category" is race, not members of a certain race.
The same DEI trainers might not remember that presumption when they're talking about race-based affirmative action. But they might want to give it a shot. A defense of affirmative action that acknowledges how it conflicts with a widely accepted presumption is actually stronger than a defense that ignores the presumption exists in the first place. It acknowledges that someone might object in good faith but that nevertheless you're offering a different view that also deserves a hearing. It's called "anticipating the objection before someone else has a chance to raise it." It's not rocket science. It's composition 101.
A guide to daily practice
Finally, "racial colorblindness" might be a good provisional guideline by which to live one's life. Maybe the person who professes "racial colorblindness" lacks much-needed self-awareness. But if that person treats others with a modicum of fairness, that's probably an on-balance good thing.
Take, for example, a white customer service rep who has complicated feelings about this, that, and another thing. Maybe they're personally racist or maybe--and much more likely--that person is a human being with their own history, experiences, and complicated way of encountering the world. Some of those maybe shed into racist or racist-adjacent thoughts.
It's probably a good bet that that person has learned a set of expected on-the-job behaviors and that those behaviors skew predominantly toward "racially colorblind." Let's say that person does the best they can to offer the same quality of service to people regardless of their presumed race or ethnicity. It'd say that's a qualified good.
I concede: it's not necessarily the dawn of a racial paradise. "The same quality of service" might fall short of "wholly inclusive welcoming." Sometimes understanding that a customer comes from a different background and might feel insecure or bullied by the environment can go a long way toward even better customers service. For example, if black customer walks in a bank to cash a check and sees all the employees and customers are white--maybe in that case the bank teller should be prepared to do something a little more welcoming. What that would be and whether there's a way to do that without being condescending, I don't know. But the teller will still have to ask for i.d.
And of course, formally equal customer service can come with a below-the-surface attitude noticeable by even the thickest-skinned customer. But even so, the customer gets their customer service concern addressed quickly and with a smile. It's a lot better than "we don't serve your kind here."
And that's if we're assuming the customer service rep really doesn't want to "serve your kind here." We needn't do that, at least not usually. I believe that most white people believe, on some level, in fair and humane treatment of others. I also believe that they believe in, or act as if they believe in, principles directly opposed to the fair and humane treatment of others. Like every human being on the planet, they hold contradictory beliefs and sometimes act in contradictory ways. Philosophers, scientists, and theologians have long puzzled over the linkages between intentions, true beliefs, false beliefs, and actions.
Still, good reason for caution
I don't think someone should be criticized for having the aspiration for racial colorblindness. I think racial colorblindness is defensible as a policy goal and a guide to day-to-day living.
I'm not saying it's the only thing to aspire to. I'm not even saying it's always a good aspiration. But it's defensible. While I don't believe most DEI trainers really want to get rid of the ideal, they give the impression that they want to toss it out in its entirety....unless they're trying to justify anti-discrimination laws.
Even so, for my friends who don't wish to ditch the term, I advise caution. At a self-interested level, it's not worth the opprobrium you'll probably face for using the word "racial colorblindness" or similar terms. It's not fair, but a lot of life isn't fair. And beyond that: it can represent a dismissive attitude and it can work as a conversation stopper for the reasons mentioned earlier in this blog post. We--and I--should learn to listen to others and remember that even a good principle, stated honestly, may not need to be raised at every point.
No comments:
Post a Comment