Throughout history, societies have grappled with how to achieve equitable treatment for all individuals, regardless of their racial or ethnic backgrounds. One strategy discussed and debated extensively is the concept of “color blindness.” This approach advocates treating people without considering their race or ethnicity to promote equal opportunity and minimize racial bias.

However, the question remains: Does color blindness help address racism, or does it inadvertently perpetuate racial prejudice and discrimination? This question was at the heart of a compelling debate hosted by TED and the nonpartisan media group Open to Debate. Moderator John Donvan led a discussion between writer and podcast host Coleman Hughes and New York Times columnist Jamelle Bouie.

Bouie is a columnist for The New York Times, joining the newspaper in 2019. He was formerly chief political correspondent for Slate. He has also been a political analyst on CBS News since 2015.

Hughes is a writer and podcast host. He was a fellow at the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research and a fellow and contributing editor at their City Journal. He is the host of the podcast Conversations with Coleman.

On June 19, 2019, Hughes testified before the U.S. House Judiciary subcommittee at a hearing on reparations for slavery, arguing against the campaign.

He argued that “[i]f we were to pay reparations today, we would only divide the country further, making it harder to build the political coalitions required to solve the problems facing Black people today,” The Wall Street Journal reported.

Bouie argued “yes” to the debate question, while Huges was on the opposing end.

Bouie argued that color blindness perpetuates racism. His stance is grounded in the belief that color blindness often downplays the reality of racial bias and systemic discrimination that persists in society. He contended that ignoring race can inadvertently uphold existing power structures that favor certain racial groups, allowing systemic racism to continue unchallenged. 

Hughes argued that color blindness does not inherently perpetuate racism. He contended that the intent behind color blindness is to treat individuals as individuals rather than as representatives of their racial or ethnic groups.

Hughes believes that the focus should be on individual merit, character, and abilities rather than making judgments based on someone’s race. 

While Bouie stressed the importance of addressing systemic racism and historical inequalities, Hughes pushed for a focus on individuality and equal treatment. 

Research on the effects of color-blind ideology has revealed complex insights. A study led by Jacqueline Yi at the University of Illinois found that certain forms of color-blind ideology, particularly power evasion (denying racism), can lead to increased anti-Black perspectives. This suggests that color blindness, if used to deny the existence of systemic racism, may indeed perpetuate discriminatory attitudes. However, color evasion (focusing on human similarity rather than racial differences) was not associated with increased prejudice. This indicates that acknowledging individuals’ racial identities while treating them fairly and respectfully might not necessarily perpetuate racism, Forbes reported.

In starting the debate, Bouie pointed out that people have different concepts on what color blindness is, but he defined his view.

“I think it’s fair to say in its modern form (color blindness) is generally understood…that we should strive to treat people without regard to race and or public policy in our private lives,” he explained. “My main concern here is public policy, so I think we can say that to be color blind means that the state, in particular, does not see race as a social reality and does not acknowledge it. But I think this actually raises an additional question which is what is race. And we know that race does not exist independently of a set of historic conditions, conditions…(that) emerges out of the subordination of indigenous Americans and various groups of Africans during the 16th and 17th centuries. It was a conceptual scheme that explained and justified their enslavement and exploitation.”

When asked the debate question, Hughes clarified his stance. 

“Does color blindness perpetuate racism? And my answer is an emphatic ‘no.’ Color blindness, historically and today, is actually the best way to fight racism. Color blindness doesn’t mean pretending not to see race, right? We all see a race, of course. We can’t help it. It means that once we’ve noticed race, we still commit to treating people without regard to it both in our personal lives and in our public policy.”

According to Hughes, color blindness is actually the solution to racism.

“Color blindness is the antidote to the poison of racism. Color blindness for decades it’s been painted as somehow naive at best or actually racist at worst. But I am here to say today that the principle of color blindness, the same principle, which my opponent attacks today, is the one that our most celebrated civil rights luminaries wielded to great effect in the battle against white supremacy and segregation.

He added, “If you want to fight racism remove race from public policy, and if you want to fight injustice do so based on class, and by definition, class policies will disproportionately benefit Blacks in Hispanics because they are disproportionately likely to be poor–that was the position of the civil rights movement, and that is my position.”

Bouie wasn’t budging and rejected the notion that civil rights advocates of the ’60s supported color blindness. He addressed the affirmative action controversy.

“Everyone acknowledges…that exceptional individuals can make their way that even talented and not quite exceptional individuals can make their way,” he said. “What do we do about group inequality? Group inequalities that are tied to a very well-established historical record.”

He continued that racism is a “major vector under which inequality happens, and it seems foolhardy to ignore it or conflate it. Race inequality is different than class inequality because the former implicates one’s personhood in a way that class equality doesn’t necessarily.”

Still, Hughes stressed that the civil rights movement was based on color blindness “The class-based policies that I’m talking about, that Dr. (Martin Luther) King advocated, they are actually getting to the core of intergenerational poverty the real issue rather than a race-based policy that is frankly about Black and Hispanic elites like me that by and large are not at the core of what we’re talking about when we talk about the legacy of slavery.”

(Left to Right) Jamelle Bouie and Coleman Hughes (Photos from Ted.com, https://www.ted.com/talks/coleman_hughes_and_jamelle_bouie_does_color_blindness_perpetuate_racism)