So Much For Colorblindness

I’ve never liked the term. I think it’s problematic and a complete contradiction. How would you feel if I claimed to be unable to see a significant part of you? Even if you wouldn’t have a problem with it, the concept is inherently flawed. Being blind to people’s differences isn’t the answer- not judging them on these differences is.

I could continue with my rationale about the falsehood of “colorblindness,” but my 14-month-old son proved my point more succinctly than I ever could. We were in the pharmacy yesterday waiting for his first antibiotic prescription to be filled. As Murphy’s Law would have it, I’m waiting in line with a sick child and the script isn’t ready- nowhere to be found. The clerk was really nice about it and helped move things along, so Avery and I went for a walk in the aisles. He proceeded to spot his father (“Da-Da”) three times. He was spotted on an advertisement for the store; Da-Da reappeared as a clerk moving merchandise; and he made his last appearance as another customer picking up his prescription. What did all of these men have in common? They were African American males. The first time this happened, I told Avery that the man was not Da-Da but did happen to be Black like his Da-Da. The second time, I must admit, I felt a little uncomfortable fearing that the other customers might assume my son was longing for a father figure, desparate enough to seek one in a random passer-by in the store- you know, the stereotypical fatherless Black boy, single-mother home story. The third time, I was simply amused and laughed at his observant, and consistent, behavior. Let me just add that Avery played a game of peek-a-boo with a White man with no mention of Da-Da.

What does this story suggest? I think this vignette supports research that has found that by pre-school age children are aware of racial differences. Some people might get up in arms and claim that if a child is noticing racial differences at that young of an age, the parents are too race-conscious. I would disagree and reiterate that our children seeing difference is not the issue. It’s all the social baggage that comes along with these labels that are problematic. My second reaction to Avery’s declaration confirms how quickly these stereotypes come to mind. He wasn’t making any judgement about Black men, but I sure was immediately cognizant of how others perceive them.

For example, when White parents claim that their child doesn’t even realize that their friends are of color, I bet the reality is that the child is aware but not influenced. As adults, we see someone’s race and immediately the stereotypes are activated. We find out where they work and attended school, and more are filled in. This process continues, because stereotypes are short cuts for the brain. They allow us to conserve cognitive energy and avoid processing fully every stimulus we come in contact with. Children have yet to learn all of these short-cuts and collect all of our baggage.

Don’t get me wrong, children can and do learn the meaning that we place on race. The social construct is powerful, and a historical study found that young children were aware of the ways people from different racial groups are treated. Children also learn by example and are keenly aware of how the adults in their world interact with others. So, what starts out as innocent awareness in time becomes fodder for preconceptions. It’s not the awareness that we need to eradicate. We are no more colorblind than we are genderblind. If someone were to make the claim that they don’t see gender, I doubt you would believe them. Gender norms are deeply ingrained in our society. Simply note the recent uproar over gender identity disorder in general or the pregnant transgendered man in particular. Claiming to be colorblind doesn’t make it so, nor does it make it desirable. It’s just not that simple. We see color; we notice racial differences; we are not colorblind. My 14-month-old son can tell you that.

Race and Capital Punishment

The Supreme Court’s recent ruling rejecting lethal injection as inhumane allowing some states to resume executions only addresses a small sliver of the controversy. Justice Stevens went on record stating that the practice of capital punishment might very well be unconstitutional. Regardless of your belief on the matter, it should not escape your awareness that the larger argument against capital punishment has its groundings in dynamics which far precede what method to utilize. Recent research has provided compelling evidence that race plays a major role in the death penalty. We should be arguing for a moratorium on the grounds that the punishment is administered in a consistently biased manner.

Race plays a role in numerous ways: the investigation of a crime, the jury selection, the media portrayal, and the charges brought against the defendant. The most striking statistic is that compared to a White defendant killing a Black victim, a Black person killing a White person is up to 30 times more likely to receive the death penalty. You might say that murder is such a heinous crime that if a few innocent people are killed in the process of administering capital punishment, it is acceptable. 30 times more likely- that’s more than a few. We can even turn to recent news to reiterate the significant ways race has influenced the system. Last year in Dallas county, TX an African American man, was exonerated by DNA testing. You might argue again that this is simply one example- a by product of such an aggressive hunt to keep murderers off of the streets is going to yield some false positives. What if I then told you that he was the 12^th person in the past 15 years in this ONE county whose conviction was overturned? This type of story is not specific to Texas, but it does provide a glaring reflection of what is wrong with our system.

It would behoove us to take a step back and to wonder why so many cases are being overturned by DNA evidence. The short answer is that we got it wrong. In some cases we can’t be sure if the error occurred in the assumptions made in the investigation, the jury selection, the charges filed, or a combination of these factors. The reality is that somewhere along the line, we sentenced to death individuals who did not commit the crime. Was it that we assumed a Black male is more likely guilty than innocent and followed a cold lead? Or was it the racialized portrayal of crime in the media that skewed the assumptions of potential and future jurors? It could also be the practice of limiting the racial diversity in juries for fear of sympathy. Thankfully, this practice has been exposed. Unfortunately this practice of using race as a factor in eliminating potential jurors- although ruled a violation of the 14th amendment- had to be reiterated in 2005 in two separate cases.

I recently took one of my classes to see the film, Race to Execution, which boldly presents evidence of the ways race affects our legal system. They had an African American man who was exonerated based on DNA evidence after over a decade on death row speak about his experience. What struck me the most were the ways in which evidence was stacked against him. The police had a bloody jacket that did not fit him; the blood stains on his shoes were later tested and found to be chocolate; the public defender he received had never tried a murder case. He’s now “free” (i.e., not behind bars). However he spoke candidly about how his job and housing prospects are bleak given his fraudulent incarceration. I’m sure similar stories exist, but this one stands out in my mind, because I was witness to its retelling. I was outraged, upset and disappointed. My tax dollars help to support this botched system.

If we are going to engage in a practice of selectively ending the lives of individuals, shouldn’t we also be willing to make sure the system is working? If you are a proponent of capital punishment- and have read this far- recognize that I am not simply saying we should abolish it on a moral basis. I am stating that in its current state, how can we not? It’s blatantly flawed. Perhaps if we would own up to the disparities and minimize the potential for bias, we can have the debate over whether capital punishment is moral or constitutional. Until then, we should follow Governor Ryan’s lead, in one respect, by advocating for a moratorium.

Getting to the Root of the Problem

I’ve decided that in order to achieve what Senator Obama referred to in his recent race speech- the perfection of our union- we need to stop providing superficial remedies to societal problems. I’ve begun to liken affirmative action to an anachronistic medical procedure that continues to be performed despite more advanced knowledge. It’s like treating the surface wounds and ignoring the underlying infection. Let me be clear- rhe need for affirmative action still exists. Unfortunately, race still has powerful effects on outcomes for individuals and shapes practices of institutions. The malady still exists, but the remedy needs some updating.

During its infancy, affirmative action was pruned by Presidents Kennedy, Johnson and even Nixon. We all should know that quotas are illegal and affirmative action was never about promoting unqualified individuals. However, the rampant misunderstanding of affirmative action is all the more reason to re-examine it. When medical procedures become out-dated, you move onto the recent technological advance. Why shouldn’t we do the same with our policies?

Stanley Fish urged us to consider historical context when examining affirmative action. He likened racism and affirmative action to cancer and chemotherapy. Both cancer and chemotherapy disrupt the balance of a system; however, one is the cause of the disease and the other is the cure. I like this analogy, because it acknowledges that there is something that needs fixing in our society- racism. It also acknowledges that affirmative action was created to remedy the situation.

However, as I look at affirmative action as a remedy, it seems like a band-aid or surface response to an underlying infection. Why can’t we propose a remedy for the root of the problem? Well when I think about the historical context, I can start to understand why. In the 1960s we were on the heels of Brown v. Board, had barely begun to implement the ruling and were in the midst of the Civil Rights Movement. We didn’t have time for a major surgery that would address the infection of racism that had seeped into every corner of American life! (One could also ask how we could not engage in the major overhaul so desperately need.) At first glance, I get that this proposal of affirmative action seemed like a reasonable response given the state of the union. Legally, we were making strides. However, one need only recall the experiences of the Little Rock Nine to illustrate how domestically and interpersonally we were far from doing the real work that was necessary.

So, here we are almost 50 years later. In many ways we have made great strides. However, problems persist and we continue to apply old remedies rather than innovate new techniques. In the medical field preventative care has been realized as a true money saver- exert effort to stave off diseases like diabetes and heart disease and save tons of money in the long run. Affirmative action provides the possibility for equality for underrepresented groups if they happen to beat the odds and are competitive for employment or higher education. What if we engaged in preventative approaches all along the pipeline- from birth through education? My hunch is that we would increase the number of individuals from underrepresented groups who are competitive, thereby increasing the likelihood that fields would be more representative of the racial make-up of society.

We need a policy that will address the inequality in the conditions and resources of our schools. We need a policy that will create equality of opportunity early in life. We need a policy that will ensure that students graduating from high schools in rural Appalachia, inner city St. Louis and the suburbs will be comparable in their knowledge base. We need a policy that will think about the pipeline rather than affect only those who are lucky enough to make it. Until we have those policies, we are merely tending to the surface of a wound that runs deep. For a while, that sort of treatment works. But after a while, the infection spreads and it gets pretty stinky. I think that’s where we are today with the arguments over reverse racism and colorblindness. We’re trying to claim that the problem is solved, and we no longer need the band-aid. We should push ourselves to consider more preventative treatments, before the situation gets further out of control. In the mean time, we will continue to need our superficial remedy affirmative action. Going back to Fish’s analogy- while we work to reduce the toxins in the environment to lower the rates of cancer, we’re still going to need the effectiveness that chemotherapy brings.

Check it Out

I have begun writing oped pieces for an in-depth, online news source- The Beacon. You can check out my pieces there and comment.