Part ofa series on
Discrimination
Forms Institutional Reverse Structural Statistical Systemic Taste-based
Attributes Age Caste Class Disability Economic Genetic Hair texture Height Language Dialect Looks Mental disorder Nationality or citizenship Race / Ethnicity Reverse Skin color Scientific racism Rank Sex Reverse Sexual orientation Species Size Viewpoint
Social Arophobia Anti-albinism Acephobia Adultism Anti-altruistic Anti-autism Anti-homelessness Anti-drug addicts Anti-intellectualism Anti-intersex Anti-left handedness Anti-Masonry Aporophobia Audism Biphobia Fear of children Clannism Elitism Ephebiphobia Health mental in poverty Fatphobia Gayphobia Gerontophobia Heterosexism HIV/AIDS stigma Hypergamy Homophobia In-group Leprosy stigma Lesbophobia Against men Misandry Misogyny Misogynoir Nepotism Outgroup Perpetual foreigner Pregnancy Sectarianism Supremacism Aryanism Black Hutu Chauvinism Han Female Human Nordicism Male Ultranationalism White Transphobia Non-binary Transmisogyny Trans men Vegaphobia Xenophobia
Religious Persecution of non-believers Atheism Blasphemy law Religious censorship In Islam Apostasy Religious police Jizya Religious persecution In China Exclusivism Baháʼí Faith Buddhism Christianity Persecution Catholicism Eastern Orthodoxy Coptic Christianity Jehovah's Witnesses LDS or Mormon Protestantism Tewahedo Orthodoxy post–Cold War era Falun Gong Hinduism Persecution Untouchability Islam Persecution Ahmadiyya Shi'ism Sufism Sunnism minority Muslim Judaism Persecution Neopaganism Rastafari Serers Sikhism Yazidism Zoroastrianism
Race or ethnicity Afghan Pashtun Hazara African Fulani Igbo Serers Albanian Arab Armenian Asian France South Africa United States Assyrian Australian Austrian Azerbaijani Black people African Americans China South Africa Bengali Catalan Chechen Chinese Han people Colombian Croat Dutch English Estonian Filipino French Finnish Georgian German Greek Haitian Hazara Hungarian Indian Indonesian Indigenous people Australia Canada United States Iranian Irish Italian Japanese Jewish Eliminationist New Religious Anti-Yiddish Zionist Korean Kurdish Lithuanian Malay Māori Mexican Middle Eastern Mongolian Montenegrin Nigerian Pakistani Palestinians Pashtun Polish Portuguese Quebec Romani Romanian Russian Scottish Serb Slavic Somali Spanish Taiwanese Tatar Thai Tibetan Turkish Ukrainian Uyghur Venezuelan Vietnamese Welsh White people
Manifestations Algorithmic bias Anti-LGBTQ rhetoric SPLC-designated list of anti-LGBTQ hate groups Blood libel Bullying Cancel culture Capital punishment for homosexuality Carnism Cognitive Compulsory sterilization Corrective rape Counter-jihad Cultural genocide Defamation Democide Dog whistle Domicide Economic Education Academic In curricula Sexism Eliminationism Eliminationist antisemitism Employment Enemy of the people Environmental racism Ethnic cleansing Ethnic conflict Ethnic hatred Ethnic joke Ethnocide Excellence Gender-based dress codes Cosmetics policy High heel policy Forced conversion Freak show Funding Gay bashing Gendercide Transgender genocide Genital modification and mutilation Circumcision Female genital mutilation Intersex medical interventions Genocide examples Glass ceiling Hate crime Disability hate crime Violence against LGBTQ people Violence against transgender people Hate group Hate speech Institutional Abuse Discrimination Racism Homeless dumping Housing Hypergamy Age disparity Indian rolling International inequality Kill Haole Day Lavender scare LGBTQ+ grooming conspiracy theory Linguicide Lynching Media Minority stress Moral exclusion Mortgage Murder music Native American mascots Braves Blackhawks Chiefs Occupational Apartheid Inequality Injustice Segregation Opposition to immigration Paper genocide Persecution Pogrom Political Political repression Ideological repression Purge Racialization Religious persecution Religious terrorism Religious violence Religious war Scapegoating Selective enforcement Selective prosecution Sentencing disparity Sexual harassment Sex-selective abortion Slut-shaming Structural abuse Structural discrimination Structural evil Structural inequality Structural violence Suicide Untermensch Trans bashing Victimisation Violence against women White flight White genocide conspiracy theory Wife selling Witch hunt
Policies Algorithmic wage discrimination Age of candidacy Apartheid in South Africa in Israel Blood purity Blood quantum Breadwinner model Conscription and sexism Disabilities Catholic Jewish Disparate impact Fagging Gender pay gap Gender roles Protecting Women's Private Spaces Act Gerontocracy Gerrymandering Ghetto benches Internment Jewish quota Opposition to LGBTQ rights MSM blood donation restrictions No kid zone Numerus clausus (as religious or racial quota) One-drop rule Racial quota Racial steering Redlining Same-sex marriage (laws and issues prohibiting) Segregation age racial Jim Crow laws Nuremberg Laws Segregation academy religious sexual in Islam Social exclusion Sodomy law State atheism State religion Ugly law Voter suppression White Australia policy
Countermeasures Affirmative action Anti-discrimination law Anti-racism Audit study Autism rights movement Blind audition Constitutional colorblindness Cross-sex friendship Cultural assimilation Cultural pluralism Diversity, equity, and inclusion Diversity training Empowerment Fat acceptance movement Feminism Fighting Discrimination Golden Rule Hate speech laws by country Human rights Intersex human rights Korenizatsiia LGBTQ rights Music in the movement against apartheid Nonviolence Racial integration Reappropriation Rock Against Sexism Self-determination Social integration Toleration Transgender rights movement Universal suffrage Women's rights
Related topics Allophilia Alterity Amatonormativity Bias Cisnormativity Civil liberties Criminalization of homosexuality Dehumanization Diseases of despair Diversity Multiculturalism Neurodiversity Ethnic penalty Figleaf Gender-blind Heteronormativity Historical eugenics Internalized oppression Intersectionality Mad pride Masculism Medical model of disability autism Oikophobia Oppression Police brutality Respect Polyculturalism Power distance Prejudice Prisoner abuse Racial bias in criminal news in the United States Racism by country Racial color blindness Religious intolerance Second-generation gender bias Snobbery Social equity Social exclusion Social identity threat Social model of disability Social privilege Christian male white Social stigma Speciesism Stereotype threat The talk
v t e

Constitutional colorblindness is a legal and philosophical principle suggesting that theConstitution of the United States, particularly theEqual Protection Clause of the14th Amendment, should be interpreted as prohibiting the government from considering race in its laws, policies, or decisions.^[1] According to this doctrine, any use ofracial classifications, whether intended to benefit or disadvantage certain groups, is viewed as inherently discriminatory and thus unconstitutional.^[2]

The concept of constitutional colorblindness can be traced back toJustice John Marshall Harlan's dissent in theSupreme Court's decision inPlessy v. Ferguson (1896), which upheldracial segregation under the "separate but equal" doctrine. Harlan wrote,^[3]

I am of the opinion that the statute of Louisiana is inconsistent with the personal liberties of citizens, white and black, in that State, and hostile to both the spirit and the letter of the Constitution of the United States. If laws of like character should be enacted in the several States of the Union, the effect would be in the highest degree mischievous. Slavery as an institution tolerated by law would, it is true, have disappeared from our country, but there would remain a power in the States, by sinister legislation, to interfere with the blessings of freedom; to regulate civil rights common to all citizens, upon the basis of race; and to place in a condition of legal inferiority a large body of American citizens, now constituting a part of the political community, called the people of the United States, for whom and by whom, through representatives, our government is administrated. Such a system is inconsistent with the guarantee given by the Constitution to each State of a republican form of government, and may be stricken down by congressional action, or by the courts in the discharge of their solemn duty to maintain the supreme law of the land, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

Although his dissent did not prevail at the time, it has since been cited in support of the view that the Constitution prohibits racial distinctions of any kind.^[4]

The doctrine gained prominence in the late 20th century as part ofconservative legal arguments against affirmative action and other race-conscious government policies. Supporters argue that the Equal Protection Clause mandates a race-neutral approach, meaning that laws and policies should not differentiate between individuals based on race, ethnicity, or color.^[5]

The principle of constitutional colorblindness is grounded in an interpretation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which states that no state shall "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Advocates of colorblindness interpret this clause as requiring that all individuals be treated equally under the law, without regard to race.^[6]

Supporters of the doctrine argue that the use of race in government policies, such as affirmative action in education or employment, constitutes a violation of the equal protection guarantee, even if the intention is to remedy past discrimination. According to this view, the Constitution prohibits not only policies that disadvantage racial minorities but also those that give them preferential treatment.^[7]

The concept of constitutional colorblindness has been influential in several major Supreme Court cases involving race and equal protection:

• Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978): The Court held that while racial quotas in college admissions were unconstitutional, race could still be considered as one factor among others in a holistic admissions process. However, proponents of colorblindness argue that any consideration of race is inconsistent with the Equal Protection Clause.^[8]
• Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1 (2007): The Court ruled that public school districts could not use race as the sole factor in student assignments to schools. Chief Justice John Roberts' majority opinion emphasized the colorblindness doctrine, stating, "The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race."^[9]
• Fisher v. University of Texas (2013 and2016): This case challenged the use of race in college admissions. While the Court upheld the university's race-conscious admissions policy, the decisions also reinforced the idea that such policies are subject to strict scrutiny and must be narrowly tailored to achieve the goal of diversity.^[10]
• Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard (2023): The Court ruled that race-basedaffirmative action programs incollege admissions processes violate the Equal Protection Clause.^[11] Chief Justice John Roberts in his majority opinion wrote, "Eliminating racial discrimination means eliminating all of it,"^[12] and Justice Clarence Thomas affirmed his "defense of the colorblind Constitution".^[13]

Critics of constitutional colorblindness argue that it ignores the enduring impact of historical and systemic racial discrimination. They contend thatrace-conscious policies, such as affirmative action, are necessary to address the persistent inequalities that continue to affectmarginalized communities. According to this view, treating everyone equally without acknowledging racial disparities perpetuates existing inequalities rather than correcting them.^[14]

Additionally, some legal scholars argue that the Equal Protection Clause was originally intended to protect racial minorities from oppression, and thus race-conscious remedies aimed at rectifying past injustices are consistent with the Constitution's purpose.^[15]

Constitutional colorblindness remains a central issue in the broader debate over affirmative action and racial equality in the United States. Proponents advocate for a race-neutral approach to government policies, while opponents emphasize the need for race-conscious efforts to promotediversity and correct systemic inequities. The Supreme Court's rulings on these issues continue to shape the legal landscape regarding race and equal protection.^[16]

• Equal Protection Clause
• Affirmative Action
• Plessy v. Ferguson
• Brown v. Board of Education
• Regents of the University of California v. Bakke
• Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1

• African-American history between emancipation and the civil rights movement
• History of African-American civil rights

• Articles with short description
• Short description matches Wikidata
• Use mdy dates from September 2024
• Articles with excerpts