The Virtue of Color-Blindness

Praise for

THE VIRTUE OF COLOR-BLINDNESS

A stirring defense of the principle that you should not gain or lose by the color of your skin. In Professor Archie’s book readers will find critical finesse, serious argument, wide-ranging classical elegance, courage, and intelligence.

—Harvey C. Mansfield, research professor of government, Harvard University, and author of Machiavelli’s Virtue

Andre Archie defends the tradition of Frederick Douglass and Martin Luther King and dissects the poisonous justifications for Balkanizing the United States along racial lines.

—Rich Lowry, editor in chief, National Review

Archie’s powerful defense of the once ‘liberal’ and now ‘conservative’ ideal of color-blindness is at the same time a warning to liberals and conservatives alike of the profound dangers of identity politics and identitarian ideologies.

—Robert P. George, McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence, Princeton University, and author of In Defense of Natural Law

An erudite and compelling demolition of today’s racialist Left from Derrick Bell to Robin DiAngelo.

—Yoram Hazony, author of Conservatism: A Rediscovery

Andre Archie is a Thomas Sowell for our generation—a daring scholar whose defense of color-blind principle can’t be dismissed as white privilege by even the most race-obsessed critic.

—Daniel McCarthy, editor, Modern Age, and editor-at-large, American Conservative

Andre Archie expertly blends classical philosophy with social and literary analysis in this clarion call for a return to the distinctly American beliefs that inspired such champions of freedom as Frederick Douglass and Martin Luther King Jr.

—Matthew Continetti, author, The Right: The Hundred Year War for American Conservatism

Andre Archie shows why that clear principle [the Constitution is colorblind] is more than rhetoric: it is an essential truth of American society and its political order.

—John Yoo, Emanuel S. Heller Professor of Law, University of California at Berkeley, visiting fellow, Hoover Institution

Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. looked forward to the day when all Americans would be judged by the content of their character and not the color of their skin…. Now Dr. Andre Archie comes to acquaint another generation of Americans with this tradition, and with its betrayal by some who argue for race-conscious policies….

—Michael Barone, senior political analyst, Washington Examiner, and longtime co-author of The Almanac of American Politics

"The Virtue of Color-Blindness is the answer to the terrible confusions over race relations in America’s schools, universities, boardrooms, and government. Archie brilliantly demolishes the racial hucksters and conflict promoters who are trying to turn back the clock on real American diversity and inclusion."

—Christopher DeMuth, distinguished fellow, Hudson Institute

Professor Archie points to a path that was not taken, which is black pride in being American felt by members of an intact ethnic and national community. His richly documented arguments provide food for thought on why American blacks did not choose this path.

—Paul Gottfried, Raffensperger Professor Emeritus of Humanities at Elizabethtown College and editor-in-chief of Chronicles, author of The Search for Historical Meaning: Hegel and the Postwar American Right

A black man growing up in today’s America, Archie combines a rootedness in the Greek and Roman classics with an acute appreciation of the continuing strength of the ‘color-blindness’ he rightly ascribes to the Constitution, in the spirit of Frederick Douglass’s repudiation of the views of the radical abolitionists—views now echoed in the historically illiterate ‘woke’ invocations of our ‘systemic’ racism.

—Carnes Lord, Professor of Strategic Leadership at the Naval War College, director, Naval War College Press, and author of Education and Culture in the Political Thought of Aristotle

This book is dedicated with much love to my supportive wife, Eleanora Archie, without whom this and so many other wonderful things in my life would not have been possible.

Contents

Preface

CHAPTER 1

Introduction

CHAPTER 2

Potatoes

CHAPTER 3

What Is the Color-Blind Approach to Race Relations?

CHAPTER 4

Frederick Douglass and the Abolitionists: The Anti-Slavery, Color-Blind Constitution

CHAPTER 5

Working the System: Sophistry

CHAPTER 6

Derrick Bell

CHAPTER 7

Ta-Nehisi Coates

CHAPTER 8

Ibram X. Kendi

CHAPTER 9

Robin DiAngelo

CHAPTER 10

Oikophobia

CHAPTER 11

Race Conscious Policies: Entitlement, Resentment, Alienation

CHAPTER 12

Identity, Nationalism, and Race

CHAPTER 13

Conclusion: Comfortable Racism

Acknowledgments

Appendix A

Appendix B

Appendix C

Appendix D

Notes

Index

Preface

I truly believe that the United States of America is at a crossroads when it comes to race relations. As a country nearly 245 years old, we have, through fits and starts, navigated issues of race and identity as well as could be expected given the tension brought about by our Founding documents and their principles and the institution of slavery on our shores. Through it all, we’ve stayed true to the spirit of 1776 and 1863 by recognizing individual rights, not group rights. The American project extols the individual, not the group. This belief was reaffirmed in the Supreme Court’s ruling against affirmative action in Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College. Americans intuitively know it’s morally right to judge individuals based on their character and not their race. In other words, Americans know it’s morally right to be color-blind.

Recently, however, there has been a weariness when it comes to the issue of race. Due to guilt, Americans seem to have been lulled and intimidated into equating the color-blind approach to race relations to a type of color-blind racism. This is an unfortunate occurrence and portends a dim future for the United States if left unchecked.

Here I sound a call to arms for those conservatives and like-minded Americans who aren’t afraid to join me in reclaiming a noble racial tradition: color-blindness! The virtue of this approach lies in the fact that virtue, as Aristotle reminds us, comes through practice and habit. Just as we learn certain skills by performing them—crafts, dance routines, sports, for example—we become morally good by performing actions that embody moral qualities.

Color-blind principles and actions engender natural, sympathetic relations among Americans because they embody the presupposition of a shared American identity that transcends the relatively small differences between us. The conservative case for reclaiming a noble racial tradition of color-blindness, on the other hand, lies in the fact that Americans must conserve that which is best, that which is noble, in our history. We must hold firmly to the hard-won gains achieved on the racial front by reminding ourselves of the spirit of 1776 and 1863. And that remembrance begins for me with my family.

Like many other Americans, I was raised in a working-class family that believed in hard work, strong religious values, and a good education. I was taught that middle-class values, as well as an openness towards others, would ultimately pave the way to success. I come from many generations of strivers that believed in perseverance and practiced personal responsibility. Like many other African Americans with a strong, curious mother as the de facto head of the family, I was encouraged to appreciate new and different experiences and meet new and different people. My family wasn’t naïve about racial discrimination and its insidious effects, but we put discrimination in perspective. Our assumption was that the racist was too conscious of race, not color-blind enough. Worrying about acts of racism wasn’t an all-consuming concern for us as it is for many of today’s African Americans. Although I mostly grew up among African Americans during my formative years, the positive and open attitude of my family’s color-blind outlook carried me to college, graduate school, and to another country to study abroad.

I strongly believe that the moral force of the color-blind approach to race relations must prevail in order for American society to continue to flourish.

To date, no extended attempt makes the conservative case for the virtue of American color-blind principles in a manner that addresses our present turmoil. In fact, I cannot think of any contemporary author on the Left or Right who doesn’t think the color-blind approach is at least outdated and probably naïve. So I’d like to offer a much-needed perspective on issues of race, race relations, and ideologies of race.¹

In light of George Floyd’s death, and the subsequent woke forces that have swept through American society, such an account is needed now more than ever. These forces have convinced the elites in education and industry to accept uncritically the claim that systemic racism against African Americans infects nearly all aspects of America and its institutions. The false accusation of systemic racism has now been embraced by titans of the tech and financial industries. Establishment political figures on the Right have also endorsed the systemic racism claim espoused by Black Lives Matter. In this caustic environment, it’s ironic that color-blindness, a once commonplace approach to race relations, is now considered heresy.

My academic background in ancient Greek philosophy, ethics, and political theory puts me in the unique position to discuss the pernicious racial pedagogies spreading throughout American society in the guise of multiculturalism, the Black Lives Matter movement, and Critical Race Theory (CRT). All of these pedagogies have found fertile ground in the classrooms of our universities, and as an educator on campus, I have a front row seat to their insidious effects. The proponents of these racial pedagogies disdain the ultimate goals of the color-blind approach and wrongly ignore hundreds of years of ethical and religious traditions that reject assigning moral worth to an individual’s ascriptive qualities.

Color-blind principles are based on a rich, historical struggle to rise above the natural but base human tendency to be selfish, parochial, and tribal. Humans naturally sort themselves into groups by excluding and marginalizing others. The perverse and obscene instances in history, such as American slavery and the Holocaust, show that such exclusion never leads to anything good. Humans have the intellectual and moral ability to progress beyond tribalism unless we choose to promote perverse institutional and societal incentives. Anti-color-blind pedagogy (and the race consciousness that it cultivates) caters to our base natural tendencies, and it does so in the same manner as all racialist ideologies.

The powerful ideal of color-blindness is more relevant than ever. The virtue of this approach gets at the foundations of many of the arguments about race taking place today in the public square. But it’s not simply about race and how Americans discuss it. No, the virtue of color-blindness is at the heart of the American identity. We cannot remain a country without it.

PART I

GIVING ACCOUNTS: RECLAIMING A NOBLE RACIAL TRADITION

CHAPTER 1

Introduction

When it comes to American race relations, the virtues of the color-blind approach shouldn’t be up for debate in the public square.¹

To be color-blind is to understand that an individual’s or a group’s racial membership should be irrelevant when choices are made or attitudes formed.²

This approach helps define what it means to be an American in both creed and culture. U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts was giving voice to the American creed about race and racial diversity in his 2007 opinion in Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District when he argued that The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.³

Not judging individuals based on their skin color should be as uncontroversial and intuitive as the statement that All Men Are Created Equal. Instead, racial color-blindness is controversial, counterintuitive, and considered naïve by the cultural arbiters in the Left-leaning academy, Big Tech, and corporate America.

My intention here is to rehabilitate the noble racial tradition of color-blindness, and to offer a much-needed response to the peddlers of odd, anti-American racial ideas and theories that go against the American identity. These anti-American ideas and theories are variously known as multiculturalism, antiracist pedagogy, diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI), and Critical Race Theory (CRT). Although my hope is that the arguments I make in defense of color-blindness appeal to the widest possible readership, conservative Americans, due to temperament and justified grievance, are my intended audience.

Some may wonder why I would direct my argument for the color-blind approach at conservative Americans, considering the fact that for nearly half a century they have been unable to neutralize an ascendant, corrosive liberalism. It’s no secret that the majority of American institutions that bestow coveted credentials, or grant access to those who have them, have been mostly captured by the Left. Despite conservatism’s apparent cultural defeat, I have faith that the right arguments coupled with righteous indignation will position conservative Americans to make up for lost ground in the cultural wars. My book provides both the right arguments and emotional appeal in its defense of color-blind principles.

To defend color-blind principles in these culturally turbulent times, conservatives must first reject an intellectual assumption popularized in the nineteenth century, and now the reigning assumption on most college campuses today. In his book On Liberty, British thinker John Stuart Mill argues that truth will emerge if competing ideas are equally entertained in the public square. Otherwise, according to Mill, we would be robbing the human race, if these ideas are right, of the chance to exchange error for truth, and, if they are wrong, of the chance to see more clearly because of the collision with error.⁴

Mill was committed to the belief that human progress is inevitable with the right elites in positions of power.⁵

As a matter of fact, the inevitable triumph of good ideas or truth is not guaranteed, and certain ideas should not be allowed to gain a foothold in the public square at all. Among those who understand that ideas have consequences, conservatives in particular should be aware of the moral hazard of legitimizing certain ideas by thinking they can be defeated solely by open and rational discussion. One such idea that conservatives failed to challenge and debunk before it took root (in the early 2000s) in influential sectors and institutions of American society is the idea of anti–color blindness. Proponents of anti-color-blind pedagogy believe that the best way to navigate cultural differences in the United States is to openly discuss and highlight racial and ethnic differences. Highlighting differences of race, they argue, makes explicit the structural nature of white economic and social power, and how it is perpetuated at the expense of black Americans and other people of color. Any attempt to downplay ethnic and racial differences, or homogenize communities of color by offering platitudes about a supposed American identity, is seen as a pernicious form of color-blind racism. Contemporary American conservatives failed to see just how corrosive and revolutionary the anti-color-blind pedagogy is. They took it for granted that the idea of color-blindness was a bedrock notion that stood very little chance of being displaced. Given the historical trajectory, legal precedent seemed to affirm conservatives’ complacency.

The legal fight against those who opposed the idea that all people are equal before the law was difficult and bloody, but the fight was believed to be just and on the right side of history.

In the 1850s, the Frederick Douglass wing of the abolitionist movement made the case for a color-blind reading of America’s Founding documents. That reading led to a split with Garrisonian abolitionists, who agreed with Chief Justice Roger Taney’s pro-slavery interpretation of the Constitution. Most important, it was Lincoln’s new birth of freedom and its attendant Civil War amendments that laid the conceptual groundwork for a color-blind interpretation of America’s Founding documents. In 1896, Justice Harlan’s dissenting opinion in Plessy v. Ferguson eloquently explained the relationship between color-blind principles and the Constitution of the United States:

But in view of the Constitution, in the eye of the law, there is in this country no superior, dominant, ruling class of citizens. There is no caste here. Our Constitution is color-blind, and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens. In respect of civil rights, all citizens are equal before the law. The humblest is the peer of the most powerful. The law regards man as man, and takes no account of his surroundings or of his color when his civil rights as guaranteed by the supreme law of the land are involved.⁶

Nearly five decades later, the civil rights movement was pivotal in laying the groundwork for equal, color-blind protection before the law, ensuring that black Americans not be judged by the color of their skin but rather by the content of their character. Martin Luther King Jr.’s Letter from a Birmingham Jail and I Have a Dream speech are powerful indictments of segregation and its anti-color-blind position precisely because they appeal to the same Founding American documents and Western philosophical texts that were also used erroneously to support segregation.

This history accounts for conservatives’ initial complacency in confronting anti-color-blind pedagogy. In other words, as color-blind principles became enshrined in law, the thinking went, history’s movement was believed to be on the side of conservatism.

Due to the historical effort in getting America to live up to its color-blind principles, one would think that any attempt to divide Americans along racial and ethnic lines for the sake of fomenting racial grievances would face stiff resistance from most sectors of American society, especially its elites in the academy and corporate America. Unfortunately, this has not been the case. Instead, racial segregation has returned in full, ugly force.

The industry that undermines the idea of color-blindness the most today is the diversity training industry and the many experts it employs to further its goals—usually from within its base located in the academy and corporate boardrooms. Diversity training has become the Trojan horse for far more insidious racial doctrines like Critical Race Theory and Antiracism. The ease with which diversity training has gained wide institutional support, both on campus and off, has been mind-boggling. The sad fact is, diversity experts have been very successful at promoting racial and ethnic consciousness among their clients.

Diversity training is an outgrowth of anti-color-blind pedagogy. It is intended to make white people aware of their unconscious racism towards people of color and lead them to accept that structural racism against blacks, specifically, is what accounts for the social disparities that afflict these communities. The training makes an emotional appeal to whites to encourage them to think sympathetically about the hard life experiences that communities of color face on a daily basis. The true intention of current diversity training in academic and corporate settings is not to offer a genuine understanding of the lived experiences