The Color-Blind Ideology as a Tool to Hide Racism

In the decades since the Civil Rights Movement, many scholars have aimed to understand why racial inequalities have persisted in the U.S. Although new changes have been put into place following this movement, such as the abolishment of slavery or the removal of state-sanctioned forms of discrimination, institutions with racial disparities have not perished. Michelle Alexander, author of “The New Jim Crow”, states that institutional racism has preserved because of the emerging ideology of colorblindness (2010:15). According to the color-blind ideology, race no longer matters or holds an important factor in social structures or social life today. Rather, it believes that all are equal and are treated in this way. Alexander argues that rather than ignoring the idea of race altogether and creating a more inclusive society, colorblindness only makes it more difficult for others to tackle racism and any other forms of racialized practices that marginalize and targets people of color (2010:15). In this essay, I will be investigating the harmful effects of colorblindness and the ways in which it contributes to racial inequalities. I will be particularly looking at the criminal justice system and explore how the color-blind ideology affects people of color, especially African Americans. Furthermore, I will be studying the relationships between criminal justice and immigration enforcement systems, and examine how colorblindness affects the immigrant criminality perspective. The two main questions I hope to answer by the end of this research paper is (1) how has colorblindness come about and (2) how has the color-blind ideology been used to mask and defend racial practices? My research paper will explore these topics in this order.

Historical Context

To understand the emergence of the color-blind ideology, one must first take a look at the history that lead to it. Colorblindness emerged because of the success of the Civil Rights Movement, a time when African Americans were moving out of the South and minority groups were challenging and protesting against the United States (Bonilla-Silva 2015:1362). Prior to this movement, marginalized racial groups were heavily segregated in their homes and exposed to high rates of poverty. The Civil Rights Movement eventually allowed them to make changes and dismantle overt forms of racial discrimination, such as voting, education, and employment (Alexander 2010:89). The launch of the Poor People’s Movement, in particular, blurred down racial lines as poor working-class whites began to collectively work with other minority groups (Alexander 2010:91). Together, they addressed issues like poverty and high unemployment rates in the U.S. When they succeeded, however, the racial lines between whites and non-whites were developed again. According to Michelle Alexander, when obstruction on the racial equilibrium occurs, conservative whites quickly search for ways to maintain their racial order (Alexander 2010:93). Therefore, following the Civil Rights Movement and all the disruption that took place, whites began to search for a new order that was race-neutral and vague. A new strategic language then emerged and gained momentum through time. Its discreet nature later led to the development of the color-blind ideology since racial discrimination was no longer visible to the public eye. Together, the two worked to increase the nature of racialized practices through its use of indirect racial terminology (Bonilla- Silva 2001:42-43). The subtle character of racial political agendas and the color-blind ideology ultimately helped reproduced white privilege and re-built racial practices of the past (Bonilla- Silva 2001:42-43).

Criminal Justice System

The criminal justice system is an oppressive tool that both serves as a system of racial control and an obscured form of racial inequality. Beyond that, it is a system that not only constitutes race but also affects how others interpret and understand it. This recursive relationship between the criminal justice system and racial inequality particularly excels because of the vague racial ethos of the color-blind ideology. Together, the two paradigms overlap, as one amplifies the racist nature of the criminal justice system and the other diverts its racialist nature (Mayes and Cleve 2015:412).

According to Mayes’ and Cleve’s scholarly journal called “Criminal Justice Through ‘Colorblind’ Lenses”, a central shift in the penology of the criminal justice system was developed as a reaction to the Civil Rights Movement (Mayes and Cleves 2015:410). This new shift, known as the “new penology”, reconstructed the objectives of the criminal justice system to one that emphasized “punishment, management, and the categorization of ‘dangerous’ groups of people” (Mayes and Cleves 2015:410). This revision especially enabled the criminal justice system to govern and maintain social and racial control of all citizens through the appearance of crime control. The new penology specifically targeted poor black and Latino communities and led to the creation of racial ideologies (Mayes and Cleves 2015:410). As racial disparities in prison populations increased, black and Latino communities were perceived as more threatening and led to hyper-surveillance from the police (Mayes and Cleves 2015:410). Slowly, the new penology shaped how these minority groups were identified and essentially predisposed them to more racial targeting. We can see here the development of a destructive cycle that is systemically inclined to bring blame and failure. The concern for risk management and protection not only targets certain racial groups are dangerous, but it blindly validates the old racist stereotypes that were imposed on minorities years ago.

Another framework that has developed following the post-civil rights era was the penology of racial innocence. This penology particularly evaluates the roles of race in disciplinary policies and contends that the criminal justice system is free from racial intent until proven otherwise (Murakawa and Beckett 2010:695). This ideology arrives from proclamations of a “color-blind” and post-racial America since the two conceal the harm and racial intent. In the journal review “The Penology of Racial Innocence”, Murakawa and Beckett argue that ideologies and practices like these not only accommodate racism but expands it in practices beyond punishment (2010:721). For example, in 2008, Black and Latinos comprised 40 and 20 percent (separately) in the prison population when each formed less than 15 percent of the U.S. population (Murakawa and Beckett 2010:699). With regards to penal and surveillance control, black or Latinx neighborhoods were disproportionately impacted by these practices and policed harsher than white neighborhoods (Murakawa and Beckett 2010:700). Although these racial disparities are everywhere, they can be difficult to prove considering that these institutions follow the colorblind racism structure. It is especially difficult for whites to notice institutional racism because they are in no way affected by these policies. Furthermore, because the new penology of racial innocence requires proof of intent, statistics and research provide limited to no insight into the intentions and causations of such practices (Murakawa and Beckett 2010:696). The widespread requirement of intent therefore restricts people from dismantling racism in the criminal justice system and discourages others from legally challenging the system.

Crimmigration and the Racialization of Latinx

According to Michelle Alexander, the Supreme Court enables police officers the right to patrol and make discretionary decisions based on an individual’s race (2010:93). For instance, in the United States v. Brignoni-Ponce case, the Court decided that it was okay for police officers to stop and search passengers only when they felt “reasonable suspicion” that the individual was an undocumented immigrant (Alexander 2010:94). In this trial, the driver, who was Mexican, was solely targeted because of his race. His physical features such as his skin color and country of origin, thus, were used against him as reasonable markers for criminality. The case United States v. Brignoni-Ponce demonstrates the merging of criminal justice and immigration enforcement systems, otherwise known as crimmigration. Other policies that partner ICE with local police departments include the agreement of Section 278(g) and a program called Secure Communities (Aranda and Vaquera 2014:95). These policies have not only accelerated deportations through the collective efforts of both systems but has also led to the rise of racial profiling, particularly among Latinos.

According to Armenta’s study called “Racializing Crimmigration”, she reveals how investigatory police stops and frontline workers are significant race-making practices that reflect and maintains American racial stratification (2017:92). For example, patrol officers who stop others for technical violations subject only Latino residents to high levels of scrutiny and sanctions (Armenta 2017:92). Their interactions indicate their place in the racial hierarchy, locating Latinos in a lower category than other citizens in the punitive system. In addition, frontline workers who have the authority to categorize people as “native” or “foreign-born” also act on their assumptions and racial biases, targeting Latinos, particularly Mexicans, as undocumented people (Armenta 2017:93). Armenta argues that their racial reasoning demonstrates that policies of punishment based on citizenship “have spillover effects that harm all Latinos”, irrespective of nativity and legal status (2017:93).

Many undocumented immigrants are also roughly aware of the racial profiling that can lead to their arrest, detention, or deportation. As a result, many reflect on their physical attributes that make them more susceptible to racial targeting. According to Aranda and Vaquera, markers of foreignness such as one’s country of origin, language use, and legal status have often been used in officers’ arrest narratives after the implementation of crimmigrational policies (2014:95). This particularly targets Latinx because of the associations they have with illegality.

The targeting of undocumented immigrants is not only based on racial categories but also based on one’s class and gender. For example, Golash-Boza’s and Hondagneu-Sotelo’s study on Latino immigrant men and the deportation crisis found that the immigration enforcement regime particularly targets poor, working-class Latinx men (2013). This shift is partly due because of the institutionalized criminalization and surveillance of brown men in urban areas (Boza and Sotelo 2013:273). Furthermore, following the climate of Islamaphobia and the high male unemployment rates aggravated by the global financial crisis, the construction of foreign men was personified by “terrorists” and “criminal aliens” labeling (Boza and Sotelo 2013:273). This gendered focus on detainment particularly has had an impact on both Latino families and the community. Since deportation removes the primary source of breadwinner income from Latinx working families, the family has to learn to survive on their own. Economic hardships especially force women who once relied on their partner’s income to take on several jobs and eventually deprives children of care in their homes (Boza and Sotelo 2013:285). In addition, the emotion and psychological trauma that deportation brings to the family also has an effect on people’s lives. Many experience psychological stress and a reduction in health because of their fear of having a similar fate (Boza and Sotelo 2013:286). Children, especially experience the pain and disproportionally feel the burden of deportation the most (Boza and Sotelo 2013:286). These gendered and classed categories thus demonstrate the various ways the targeting of immigrants affects the Latinx community as a whole.

These laws that target and potentially punish citizens are examples of color-blind institutional racism because they often go undefined or misread. Even those who perform these institutional policies believe they are color-blind because they follow laws that are subtle and appear race-neutral. Therefore, the risk of Latinx getting arrested for any driving offenses only increases and essentially subjects them to the criminal justice system. Investigatory police stops and other policing practices also demonstrate the existence and maintenance of racial stratification in the U.S. Their treatment and exposure to high-risk inspections and arrests negatively mark Latinx as lesser citizens. Latinos immigrants, especially, get criminalized because of their association with illegality. This proves the detrimental effects that color-blind ideologies have on a racial group. In this case, we see that colorblindness conceals and naturalizes the laws and practices that systemically punish Latinos in the United States.

In conclusion, the color-blind ideology both protects and conceals institutional racism through the use of race-neutral laws and vague racial terminology. This paper has demonstrated the historical, racial, and material conditions that appear under colorblindness. It explored both the criminal justice system and the immigration enforcement system to demonstrate the detrimental effects that it has on society. Although some of its results may not have been intentional, colorblindness originates from a long tradition of preserving the American racial hierarchy. For this reason, it is fundamental to learn the history and origins of race-neutral practices. Without the understanding, we do not have the sufficient tools to address and stop it.