Race-Blind Policies

Race-blind policies, also referred to as color-blind policies, are policies that seek to eliminate racial or ethnic categories and preferences from admissions or applications processes. Race-blind policies are a response to affirmative action policies that use race as one of the factors in determining admission to an institution or in awarding government contracts. The integration of these policies is usually debated at the collegiate level, where recent events at the University of Michigan and in the states of California and Texas illustrated the ongoing controversy over these policies. Debates over the two types of policies thus provide information on current attitudes on the status of race and racial equality within the United States.

A distinct set of values, concerns, and political practices drives the proponents and opponents of race-blind policies. Often the debate about the integration of race-blind policies coincides with debates about affirmative action policies. Two recent Supreme Court rulings on affirmative action profoundly influenced advocates on both sides of the issue. In the 2003 Grutter v. Bollinger court case, the Supreme Court ruled that a university benefits from diversity, and thus a points system for admission factoring the race of the applicant into the process is constitutional. In another 2003 court case, Gratz v. Bollinger, the Supreme Court ruled that the points system applied at the University of Michigan to underrepresented racial groups—including African Americans, Hispanics, and Native Americans—was not “narrowly tailored” to achieve the university's goals of diversity and was thus unconstitutional. Both Court cases present the complexities associated with the integration of race-conscious policies at the university level. In response to race-conscious policies, proponents of race-blind policies argue that this type of policy will alleviate the problems created by affirmative action.

Those in favor of race-blind policies argue that diversity and racial inequality are no longer important in determining or informing admission to colleges and universities. Proponents argue that racial inequality is no longer present in the United States, and therefore race-blind policies will create an even playing field for applicants. Many supporters of race-blind policies also argue that current affirmative action policies are a form of reverse discrimination denying whites access to institutions, thus causing them to experience institutional discrimination. This side of the debate also espouses the value of a meritocracy in which individuals should gain admissions slots and contracts based solely on each individual's qualifications and achievements, not racial status.

Another group appears to espouse neo-segregationist ideas in their argument for the inclusion of race-blind policies at the collegiate level. They argue that the presence of students of color in the classroom lowers the standard of education for all students. This argument rests on the assumption that university or college students of color are not as qualified as their fellow white students, thanks to an application process concerned only with avoiding institutionalized racism. This group focuses on the belief that students should be held to a high standard of education, regardless of their race.

Opponents of race-blind policies argue that race is still an important factor in determining how a society's resources should be distributed. They insist that the United States is still a country in which certain races have unequal access to society's resources. Those who seek to retain policies acknowledging race in the application process believe that affirmative action policies work against the institutionalized racism that students of color otherwise face, thus working to end institutionalized racism and discrimination at the collegiate level.

...