The End of Race Politics

1. Race is an arbitrary social construct, not a fixed reality.

The social construct of race has flown the perch of the natural phenomenon that inspired it.

Race is a hybrid concept. While inspired by natural genetic variations linked to ancient migrations, the way we categorize race today is a social construct. These categories are not based on precise science but on arbitrary historical factors and political convenience.

Arbitrary lines are drawn. The lines between racial categories are blurry in reality, yet society draws sharp, nonsensical distinctions. Examples include the "one-drop rule" for Black identity, the shifting definition of "Asian" based on exclusion laws, or the inconsistent criteria for "Hispanic" status, sometimes including Spanish Europeans and Indigenous Peruvians in the same group while excluding Brazilians. These arbitrary classifications have significant, often unfair, impacts on people's lives, determining eligibility for benefits like scholarships or business aid.

Better proxies exist. Race is often used as a proxy for disadvantage or historical victimhood, but it's a poor one. Socioeconomic status (income, wealth) is a more accurate measure of current disadvantage. For historical injustice, racial identity is also inaccurate, as many non-white individuals (like recent immigrants) have no ancestral connection to American slavery. Using more accurate proxies instead of race is essential for just public policy.

2. Colorblindness is the historical and true anti-racist principle.

To advocate colorblindness is to endorse an ethical principle: we should treat people without regard to race, both in our public policy and in our private lives.

Not about ignoring race. Colorblindness doesn't mean pretending not to see race or denying that racial bias exists. It is a principle of conscious disregard for race as a basis for differential treatment or public policy. Phrases like "I don't see color" are misleading; the goal is to try to treat people without regard to race.

Rooted in civil rights. This principle was central to the abolitionist and civil rights movements. Figures like Wendell Phillips advocated for a "government color-blind" after slavery, and Justice John Marshall Harlan's dissent in Plessy v. Ferguson famously declared, "Our Constitution is color-blind." NAACP lawyers, including Thurgood Marshall, used this principle in their fight against segregation, though the Brown v. Board decision ultimately relied on other arguments.

Betrayal of the ideal. Despite being the core ideal of the civil rights movement, colorblindness was largely abandoned in elite circles after the 1960s. Policies of racial discrimination, often framed as "affirmative action" or "compensatory justice," began to proliferate, contradicting the very principle that had just achieved major legal victories.

3. "Neoracism" is a new form of race politics that rejects colorblindness.

Neoracists agree that race matters deeply and inherently, but not because of genetics or divine decree.

Race matters for new reasons. Unlike old-school racists who believed race mattered due to biology or divine will, neoracists believe it matters for societal and historical reasons. They argue that discrimination favoring non-whites is justified due to the hardships they and their ancestors endured at the hands of whites. This view insists on sharp racial classifications and uses terms like "blackness" and "whiteness" to encompass stereotypes about character and behavior.

Stereotypes are central. Neoracists rely heavily on racial stereotypes, such as Robin DiAngelo's claim that being white is "tantamount to being arrogant and ignorant about race" or Ta-Nehisi Coates's description of "White freedom." These are heuristics that reduce individuals to perceived group averages, causing justified anger and resentment.

Actions contradict words. While neoracists claim race is a social construct, their actions reveal a different belief. They police racial boundaries and interactions with zeal, enforcing strict rules about who can say or do what based on race. This behavior suggests they treat race as if it were a natural, deeply meaningful category, much like old-school racists.

4. Neoracism has infiltrated elite American institutions.

Neoracism now infects most of our major institutions: government, education, media, and more.

Double standards are evident. Elite institutions often apply racial double standards. The New York Times excused a journalist's racist tweets about white people, and Yale University debated condemning a psychiatrist's talk fantasizing about murdering white people, focusing on hostility and profanity but conspicuously omitting racism. These instances suggest anti-white sentiment is often tolerated or implicitly endorsed.

Government policies reflect neoracism. Race-based policies, often shrouded in euphemisms, exist throughout government. Examples include:

• The American Rescue Plan's debt relief for farmers, initially excluding white farmers.
• The Restaurant Revitalization Fund prioritizing non-white and female owners for the first three weeks.
• COVID-19 vaccine and antiviral distribution guidelines that initially prioritized non-whites over the elderly or required white people to have additional risk factors.

Education embraces segregation and discrimination. Higher education institutions increasingly offer racially segregated spaces (dormitories, orientations, graduations), contradicting the goals of integration and diversity. K-12 education also shows neoracist influence, such as a Minneapolis school district contract prioritizing non-white teachers in layoffs or NYC training materials labeling traits like "perfectionism" and "objectivity" as "white supremacy culture." Hiring practices, like Texas A&M setting aside funds for non-white hires, openly reject meritocracy for race-based criteria.

5. Social media and tribalism fuel the spread of neoracism.

Neoracist ideology—because it casts every event as an instance of us versus them, good versus evil, black versus white—has been able to take advantage of the increased speed and decreased quality of the information people circulate.

A sudden shift in attitudes. Around 2013, American attitudes towards race relations took a significant nosedive, coinciding with the widespread adoption of smartphones and social media. This wasn't due to increased actual racism (support for white supremacy and police shootings were declining) but likely due to changes in how information spreads.

Tribal narratives travel faster. Social media amplifies content that appeals to tribal identities, us-versus-them narratives, and historical grievances. Fact-checking and nuanced analysis, which emphasize common humanity or rational understanding, travel much slower. This gives ideologies like neoracism, which frame events in stark racial terms, a competitive advantage.

Misinformation and paranoia. The rapid spread of emotionally charged, often inaccurate, stories of racism creates a misperception that racism is a more widespread problem than it is. Studies show that heavy social media users, particularly liberals, hold wildly inaccurate beliefs about the frequency of events like unarmed black men being killed by police. This suggests social media is miseducating, fostering paranoia and pessimism rather than accurately reflecting reality.

6. Constant racial talk may increase, not decrease, racial tension.

Perhaps raising the overall salience of racial identity actually increases interracial tensions.

The counterintuitive argument. Many believe that talking more about race is necessary to combat racism. However, constantly focusing on racial identity and its importance may actually increase interracial tensions and reinforce tribal instincts. The more salient race becomes, the more it can become a container for negative human tendencies like hatred and paranoia, not just positive ones.

Morgan Freeman's insight. Actor Morgan Freeman famously suggested that the way to get rid of racism is to "stop talking about it," advocating for people to stop labeling each other by race. This perspective challenges the assumption that increased racial awareness automatically leads to decreased racist attitudes.

Analogy of sports rivalry. Imagine trying to reduce hatred between rival sports fans by constantly emphasizing the importance of their teams and the history of their rivalry. This would likely intensify, not decrease, hostility. Similarly, raising the salience of racial identity may deepen group attachments and increase intergroup conflict. While discussing actual instances of discrimination is necessary, much mainstream racial talk focuses on stereotyping and group identification, which may be counterproductive to combating racism.

7. Racial disparities don't automatically prove racism (The Disparity Fallacy).

The Disparity Fallacy assumes, in other words, that all disparities are malignant.

Disparities can be benign. Neoracists often commit the Disparity Fallacy, assuming that any racial disparity in outcomes (income, incarceration, etc.) must be due to racism. However, disparities can be malignant (caused by discrimination) or benign (arising from cultural or demographic differences). Assuming all disparities are malignant leads to misdiagnosis and harmful interventions.

Demographic and cultural factors. Differences in age distribution between racial groups can create disparities in income or crime rates. Geographical differences also correlate with disparities. Crucially, cultural differences play a significant role in shaping group outcomes. While acknowledging cultural differences can be controversial, denying their impact is historically ignorant and conceptually confused, especially when disparities exist between ethnic groups of the same race (e.g., different Asian or Black subgroups).

Process matters more than outcome. Just as in professional sports, where racial disparities in player representation don't automatically imply racism in recruitment, the fairness of a system is determined by the process, not just the outcome. A colorblind process can produce unequal outcomes, and a racist process can produce equal outcomes (e.g., racial quotas). Accusing a system of unfairness requires demonstrating unfair actions or policies within the process itself, not merely pointing to a disparity.

8. Present discrimination cannot undo the injustices of the past.

The only remedy to racist discrimination is antiracist discrimination. The only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination. The only remedy to present discrimination is future discrimination.

A perverse conception of justice. Neoracist ideology, exemplified by Ibram X. Kendi's statements, explicitly endorses the logic of retaliation – that the way to remedy past injustice is with present injustice. This "eye for an eye" approach is a simplistic and dangerous way to think about justice, leading to endless cycles of wrongful discrimination.

Adding to the sum of injustice. Discriminating against one group today does not erase the suffering or compensate the victims of past discrimination against another group. It simply adds a new injustice to the world's tally. Historical examples, like the cycle of oppression between the Han and Manchus in China, show that power reversals based on historical grievances do not lead to justice but to new forms of suffering.

No limiting principle. If redressing past discrimination justifies present discrimination, there is no logical limit to this principle. Why not implement race-based voting policies or other extreme measures? The lack of an internal limiting principle makes this rationale for race-based policies inherently dangerous. The true lesson of past discrimination is that the path forward is to end discrimination for all, not to sanction new forms of bigotry.

9. America has made significant, often unacknowledged, progress on race.

The past sixty years have witnessed unprecedented progress in combating racism against people of color—progress that’s evident in numerous ways.

Ignoring real progress. Neoracists often promote the Myth of No Progress, claiming American society has made little or no progress since the civil rights movement. This ignores substantial positive changes, such as:

• Dramatic increase in approval of interracial marriage (from 4% in 1958 to 94% in 2021).
• Increased Black representation in government.
• Significant decline in incarceration rates for young Black men.
• Decline in Black teenage motherhood.
• Higher percentage of Black Americans reporting being better off financially than their parents compared to whites or Hispanics.
• No racial gap in upward mobility for women.

Decline of white supremacy. White supremacist organizations have seen a dramatic decline in membership and social power over decades. While events like the Charlottesville rally are alarming, they represent a fringe movement, not the mainstream. Neoracism, by contrast, is a more dangerous threat because it is often cloaked in the language of anti-racism and enjoys a degree of social approval in elite institutions.

The unforgiveness treadmill. Neoracists often deny that America has made significant efforts to acknowledge and atone for its past. However, numerous apologies (by Congress and states), federal holidays (MLK Day, Juneteenth), and institutions (National Museum of African American History and Culture) exist. Policies like affirmative action were initially justified as "compensatory justice." These efforts are often taken for granted or conveniently forgotten by neoracists, who gain social and political power from the perception that a debt is still owed. This creates a cycle where new gestures of atonement are demanded and then dismissed, preventing genuine reconciliation.

10. The myth of inherited racial trauma is harmful and lacks scientific basis.

The Myth of Inherited Trauma claims that black people who are alive today inherit the trauma that was inflicted on their enslaved ancestors—that they can actually have a direct first-person experience of the kind of pain and suffering their ancestors endured.

Lacks scientific support. The idea that trauma from distant ancestors is directly inherited and experienced today lacks a plausible biological mechanism. While epigenetics studies the environmental effects on gene expression, research does not support the claim that past cruelties affect our physiology today in the way the myth suggests.

Universal trauma. If inherited trauma were real, virtually everyone would be suffering from it, as slavery and other forms of severe hardship (war, famine) have been ubiquitous throughout human history. Tracing almost any family tree would likely reveal traumatized ancestors. The focus on inherited trauma specifically for Black Americans, while ignoring the traumatic histories of countless other groups, reveals the selective application of this myth.

Promotes chronic victimhood. The Myth of Inherited Trauma is harmful because it encourages a mindset of perpetual victimhood. It treats trauma not as an acute condition to be overcome, but as a permanent, defining state, undermining individual autonomy and agency. A healthy approach to historical suffering involves acknowledging the past, honoring the resilience of ancestors, and focusing on building a better future, rather than claiming to personally experience the pain of the dead.

11. Claims of superior racial knowledge are used to silence dissent.

People of color are not only morally superior, they claim; people of color are epistemically superior as well: they have knowledge of race and racism that is superior to the knowledge that white people have.

The Myth of Superior Knowledge. Neoracists assert that people of color possess inherently superior knowledge about race and racism compared to white people. This claim is used to dismiss any arguments or perspectives offered by white individuals on these topics, framing them as inherently ignorant or unqualified to speak.

Perverting "lived experience". Neoracists misuse the concept of "lived experience" in a racialized way. While everyone has unique experiences, neoracists claim that race, specifically, grants a superior form of experiential knowledge. They apply this selectively to people of color, arguing their knowledge is "incorrigible" (cannot be corrected by white people). This ignores that lived experience is always partial and that learning from others' different experiences is necessary for a complete understanding.

The Racial Ad Hominem. This myth fuels the Racial Ad Hominem fallacy, where arguments are dismissed based on the speaker's race (e.g., "Easy for a rich white man to say," even if the person is not white). This is fallacious because the truth of a claim depends on evidence and logic, not the identity of the person making it. This tactic is used to shut down debate and protect neoracist claims from scrutiny.

12. True anti-racism requires colorblind policies and investing in skills.

The short answer is that we need to seize the current opportunity to recommit ourselves to the principles of the civil rights movement.

Recommit to colorblindness. Solving the problem of racism requires rejecting neoracism and embracing the colorblind principle in public policy and private life. This means condemning all forms of racism, including anti-white bigotry, and stigmatizing racist talk across the board. While racial diversity can be a worthy goal in specific contexts (like policing), it is not inherently good and should not override the principle of race-neutral merit in most domains.

Focus on process, not just outcome. Efforts to achieve "equity" often focus solely on manipulating outcomes (like racial quotas) without addressing underlying causes. This creates the illusion of equity but doesn't equip people with the skills needed to succeed. True equity requires focusing on the fairness of processes and ensuring equal opportunity to develop skills.

Invest in early skill development. The most effective way to address disparities and move towards true equity is by investing heavily in high-quality education and skill development programs for disadvantaged children from birth through age eighteen. Research suggests key factors for success include frequent feedback, data-driven instruction, high-dosage tutoring, increased learning time, and fostering a culture of high expectations. This approach, unlike race-based policies or affirmative action at the college level, targets the root causes of disparity and empowers individuals to succeed based on merit.

Last updated: May 17, 2025