In the past four parts of this series, we examined how disparate impact has been weakened through executive orders, misunderstood by media narratives, and weaponized as a scapegoat by anti-DEI crusaders. We’ve seen how laws with noble aims are undermined by poor enforcement and relentless opposition. Now, in Part Five, we confront the ideological heart of the resistance: the myth of colorblindness.
We move past slogans and euphemisms. We face the hard truth: colorblind policies maintain racial inequality. And pretending not to see race has never made racism disappear.
I. The Colorblind Myth: A Comfortable Lie
The notion that race should not be considered in public policy sounds fair, even moral, at first glance. But fairness isn’t sameness. And sameness isn’t justice.
The colorblind ideal gained strength after the civil rights movement. Politicians, courts, and institutions began promoting a narrative of equal opportunity while sidestepping the racial inequality embedded in housing, employment, education, and credit systems. The result? Policies that ignore race also ignore racism.
Examples include:
-
Education: Colorblind admissions policies have removed race-conscious considerations while legacy preferences—benefiting mostly white applicants—remain untouched.
-
Criminal Justice: Risk assessment algorithms like COMPAS (Correctional Offender Management Profiling for Alternative Sanctions) were found to assign higher recidivism risks to Black defendants than white ones with similar histories.
-
Employment: Hiring software has filtered out applicants based on zip codes, which are often racially segregated due to redlining.
None of these policies used race as an explicit criterion. But they all produced racial inequality.
II. Race-Neutral Policy Isn’t Neutral in Practice
Colorblind laws often claim to apply equally. But they are rooted in unequal soil.
One of the most enduring examples is school funding. In most states, public schools are funded primarily through local property taxes. Because Black families were systematically excluded from homeownership opportunities in the 20th century, their neighborhoods—through no fault of their own—have lower property values.
This means:
-
Schools in majority-Black districts receive less funding.
-
Students in these districts are less likely to have advanced placement classes, extracurriculars, or modern technology.
-
This funding gap persists regardless of race-neutral formulas.
If we apply the same rules to unequal circumstances, we preserve inequality. That’s the real legacy of colorblind policy.
III. Colorblindness as a Political Weapon
Today’s conservative rhetoric accuses advocates of racial justice of “dividing the country.”
But in truth, the nation was divided long before DEI became a talking point.
The attack on race-conscious policy is not new. From the backlash against busing in the 1970s to the more recent repeal of affirmative action, opponents have strategically reframed racial justice as racial favoritism.
Their favorite tools include:
-
Invoking “meritocracy” that ignores structural inequality.
-
Passing laws banning critical race theory in schools.
-
Passing laws prohibiting DEI offices at public universities.
These measures don’t protect freedom. They erase the truth, deny lived history, and entrench privilege. Colorblind rhetoric is used not to promote fairness but to silence claims for justice.
IV. The Truth: Race-Conscious Policies Work
When we talk about being “race-conscious,” we’re not suggesting favoritism. We’re acknowledging facts:
-
Black families were denied GI Bill benefits post-WWII.
-
FHA and VA loans were once used to build white wealth while excluding Black Americans.
-
Redlining wasn’t a metaphor—it was a federal policy.
Being race-conscious means knowing that the playing field isn’t level. It means understanding that wealth inequality today isn’t the product of individual failure, but government design.
Race-conscious policies that worked in the past include:
-
The Voting Rights Act of 1965, which tailored protections for jurisdictions with histories of suppression.
-
The Community Reinvestment Act of 1977, which incentivized banks to lend in underserved neighborhoods.
-
Executive Orders like 11246, which required federal contractors to take affirmative steps in hiring.
These policies worked. They didn’t fix everything, but they slowed the bleeding. And their repeal or weakening—such as in Shelby County v. Holder (2013)—reversed much of the progress made.
V. What Justice Really Requires
If colorblindness doesn’t work, what does justice require?
Justice requires race-consciousness—not to divide, but to repair.
It requires facing the facts, not rewriting them. It requires action, not nostalgia. And it requires political courage: the courage to admit that neutrality in the face of injustice is not moral—it is betrayal.
We do not need more debates about whether inequality exists. We need answers to what we’re going to do about it.
We will present one bold, cost-effective, and immediately implementable policy in Part Six. But for now, know this:
Justice is not achieved by closing our eyes to race. It is achieved by looking at it directly and deciding to act.
Closing Statement
Thank you for reading this blog. I appreciate your continued support in raising awareness about the issues that impact our communities the most. Please share this blog—and explore my other articles and videos—each one created to educate, empower, and uplift. Together, we can challenge the systems that hold us back and push forward policies that open the doors to opportunity for all.
Eric Lawrence Frazier, MBA
Your trusted advisor in business and wealth
www.ericfrazier-com-869976.hostingersite.com | www.thepowerisnow.com
NMLS #451807 | CA DRE #01143484
Schedule a consultation: https://calendly.com/ericfrazier/real-estate-mortgage-consultation-clients
References
-
Angwin, J., Larson, J., Mattu, S., & Kirchner, L. (2016). Machine Bias. ProPublica. https://www.propublica.org/article/machine-bias-risk-assessments-in-criminal-sentencing
-
Hardy, B. L., Logan, T. D., & Parman, J. (2018). The Historical Role of Race and Policy in Labor Market Inequality. IZA Institute of Labor Economics. https://ftp.iza.org/dp11752.pdf
-
Rothstein, R. (2017). The Color of Law: A Forgotten History of How Our Government Segregated America. Liveright Publishing.
-
U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2021). Condition of Education. https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/
-
The Century Foundation. (2019). How School Funding Is Unequal in the United States. https://tcf.org/content/facts/school-funding-unequal-united-states/
-
Southern Poverty Law Center. (2023). Hate and Extremism Report. https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2023/annual-hate-extremism-report
-
Congressional Research Service. (2023). Racial Disparities in Housing and Homeownership. https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R47058
-
National Fair Housing Alliance. (2020). Fair Housing Trends Report. https://nationalfairhousing.org/reports-research/
-
Urban Institute. (2022). Redlining’s Legacy: The Persistent Effects on Housing, Education, and Health. https://www.urban.org/features/redlinings-legacy
-
U.S. Department of Justice. (2011). Guidance on the Fair Housing Act. https://www.justice.gov/crt/fair-housing-act-1