Link – Courts
Lawrence 95 – (Charles R. Professor of Law at University of Hawai'i at Mānoa Centennial “The Epidemiology of Color-Blindness: Learning to Think and Talk About Race, Again” Boston College Third World Law Journal Volume 15 | Issue 1 Article 2 1-1-1995 lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1248&context=twlj , cayla_)
It was not until well after Brown established Justice Harlan's dissent as the law of the land that color-blindness was transformed from a healing prescription into a carrier of the disease itself.16 If the equal protection clause required the disestablishment of racist meanings, practices and institutions, that disestablishment could not occur without giving affirmative attention to those meanings and practices. This is the meaning of affirmative action. One cannot desegregate a segregated school by ignoring the race of those seeking admission. 17 But affirmative action made it apparent that one could not achieve equal opportunity without some redistribution of opportunity. Of course this redistribution was resisted. The resistance took the form of antiaffirmative action politics and what became known as "reverse discrimination" litigation. 19 The transformation of color-blindness from prescriptive ideal into a condition of societal denial first appeared in these anti-affirmative action cases and in the politics that created those cases.20 The transformation is achieved by the assertion that Justice Harlan's ideal has now become real. "Our Constitution is color-blind" becomes 'We are a color-blind society."21 Such an assertion can only be believed if we engage in massive denial of what we see and hear every day. Thus when the Supreme Court struck down the Richmond Virginia minority set-aside program in Croson,22 the majority opinion found that there was "no direct evidence of race discrimination [against minority contractors] on the part of the city ... or any evidence that the city's prime contractors had discriminated against minority-owned subcontractors."23 The Court's majority blinds itself to Richmond's history of slavery and segregation.24 It refuses to see the city's still segregated neighborhoods and segregated schools. The Justices deny their own life experiences in clubs, communities and jobs where blacks are rarely seen.25 And if these realities are brought to their attention they say, "but this is not evidence,"26 or "this is economics, not race, "27 or "this is protected racist speech, not conduct,"28 or "it is not racism when white contractors hire their friends and all of their friends just happen to be white,"29 or "maybe black folks don't like contracting work. "30 And then they say to those who seek affirmative remedies for this discrimination, "You must be a racist if you don't believe we are a color-blind society. "31 These are all forms of denial. The Justices on the Supreme Court are not its only practitioners. Denial is a pervasive symptom of contemporary American racism.
Link – Democracy
The belief in democracy and equality is a racist one that obscures and further promotes white privilege
Lopez, 2003 (Gerardo [Professor of Political Science], "The (Racially Neutral) Politics of Education: A Critical Race Theory Perspective", Educational Administration Quarterly Vol. 39, No. 1 (February 2003) 68-94, 6/28, eaq.sagepub.com/content/39/1/68.full.pdf) // cjh
Taken holistically, CRT posits that beliefs in neutrality, democracy, objectivity,¶ and equality “are not just unattainable ideals, they are harmful fictions¶ that obscure the normative supremacy of whiteness in American law and¶ society” (Valdes et al., 2002, p. 3). Notwithstanding, White Americans continue¶ to believe in these ideals, because a racial reality is, perhaps, too difficult¶ to digest. For example, if I were to argue that what we study within the¶ politics of education is entirely racist, most scholars in the field—conservative¶ and liberal alike—would be greatly offended, finding such statements¶ preposterous and absurd. Although some would agree there might be certain¶ institutional practices (such as power) that limit the political participation of¶ nonmainstream groups, or perhaps a handful of truly racist individuals whose¶ values and beliefs create policies that negatively affect people of color, most¶ of us would believe that our knowledge base is not largely affected by racism.¶ To the contrary, most of us would tend to believe that what we study actually¶ highlights the processes by which people of color are marginalized on a¶ daily basis and how they can challenge and change the political spectrum¶ through voting, grassroots organizing, mass mobilization, and the election of¶ minority officials and representatives. In other words, the belief that the politics¶ of education actively supports a racist agenda does not fit our prevailing¶ and espoused beliefs about the nature of the field.¶ The role of CRT is to highlight the fact that such beliefs only serve to¶ maintain racism in place—relegating racism to overt/blatant and unmistakable¶ acts of hatred, as opposed to highlighting the ways in which our beliefs,¶ practices, knowledge, and apparatuses reproduce a system of racial hierarchy¶ and social inequality. Rarely do we question our own values and knowledge¶ base and how those beliefs emerge from—and help sustain—the notion of a¶ racially neutral and democratic social order that works for all people. In other¶ words, within the field, we have a tendency to think that social problems¶ (such as racism) will be resolved if more people get involved in the political¶ arena and “do something” about it. The belief in democracy and “justice for¶ all” is protected—as is the belief that the vehicles to ascertain social justice¶ are racially neutral. It is a cheery and simplistic take on how racism actually¶ functions in society, as well as a naïve understanding how it can be resolved¶ and remedied.