Colorblindness sounds like a simple solution to a complex problem. As Chief Justice John Roberts once put it, “The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” As a legal matter, maybe that’s the right way to go. But the social fact of race is too tenacious, too deeply embedded in our nation’s history, thought, and feeling to dismiss with the bang of a gavel. In this clip from our most recent conversation, John and I consider the ways that opposing sides of the colorblindness debate often talk past each other.
This is a clip from the episode that went out to paying subscribers on Monday. To get access to the full episode, as well as an ad-free podcast feed, Q&As, and other exclusive content and benefits, click below.
Well said John W…it is frustrating for all of us…The Constitution is colorblind…that is our foundation….live it….because the society isn’t internalizing the realities of color blindness then they can come back when they decide to cooperate…right? If we walk in the framework of color blindness …it must start there…..Though society may not be behaving as one ought doesn’t mean that the reality of color blindness is not the truth we hold to be self evident…so we tell folks get with it…and if they don’t …the law finds that behavior unacceptable…right?….Just like the rules in your own home…you have standards….society and our civil world must have standards…and society must adhere or change….which means go to your corner until your ready to do the right thing … Are you going to change the rules in your home to accommodate bad behavior . Of course not, we don’t change the standard we insist on the change of the individual or the behavior is not acceptable….Now that doesn’t mean we don’t make provisions to give folks a leg up …but they need to want a leg up or they become a drag on the system….There are lots of things we all don’t want to do…let’s just get ourselves oriented toward the truth and if you want help with that we would be happy to help…One person at a time….and be available with that help….why because colorbindnes is just that blind…..If it’s a case of coveting what another has ….name that as a fatal flaw…I want what they have …to which we say …then work for it….Now we are not talking about the authentically indigent, one with no resources, we are talking about those who simply are about wreaking havoc….whiners…I’d like to whine all day sometimes…ugh what an awful existence…That doesn’t mean we don’t empathize but that’s different than indulging bad behavior….civil society is just that ..its civil or we are in trouble…period.
For me as a Jew (a liberal Jew who's a loyal Democratic voter), I find this discussion/debate fascinating as it arises for me in a different context.
It's an analogous synergy I feel with both of you as a strong defender of the First Amendment. Defending the First Amendment, however, means defending the right of people to say anti-Semitic things that are incredibly offensive, offensive, and ignorant. Especially in the aftermath of the horrendous October 7 attacks in Israel.
But I'm not yielding. That can make fellow Jews rather angry. It's an attitude can be met with accusations of anti-Semitism, denial of anti-Semitism, denials of discrimination against and atrocities committed against Jews (past and present), obliviousness to the real world threats, and minimizing the suffering of others who have been attacked. To me, that's fallacious reasoning. And frankly, I think it's far more dangerous to Jews to support the weakening of the First Amendment than any of the stupid chants at college campuses. But while I'm offended by this stuff, I'm not giving up my rights as an American simply because people say things that I don't like and don't agree with.
So, I relate to the nuanced position where you're both coming from in this discussion. And as always, I appreciate hearing these views and this discussion.