Coleman Hughes makes a defense of color neutrality in law and politics.

Andrew Sullivan

Feb 16, 2024

∙ Paid

Has the United States ever officially been a color-blind society? You could make a plausible case that it hasn’t. For four centuries, it enshrined enslavement and then segregation of African-Americans, pursued the near-extermination and ethnic cleansing of most Native Americans, and subsequently made “white” racial identity central to its immigration policies. Then, in the mid-1960s, in civil rights and immigration, it finally repudiated this racist regime. The philosophy behind the 1964 Civil Rights Act can be traced back to the abolitionist Wendell Phillips in 1867, who insisted that the end of slavery was not enough:

When once the nation is absolutely, irrevocably pledged to the principle that there shall be no recognition of race by the United States or by State law, then the work of the great anti-slavery movement which commenced in 1831, is accomplished.

This idea was carried forward in 1896 by Justice John Marshall Harlan in his dissent in Plessy v. Ferguson:

Our Constitution is color-blind, and neither knows not 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.

That dissent was later described by an aide to Thurgood Marshall as the “Bible” to which the great 20th Century jurist turned to in his darkest moments.

But almost as soon as the 1964 breakthrough in overcoming racial classifications took hold, it was abandoned. In a perverse echo of the past, sanctioned preferential treatment for blacks slowly began to replace sanctioned preferential treatment for whites. Set-asides, quotas, affirmative action all proliferated, all rooted in the old, crude racial classifications. The notion that affirmative action was a temporary adjustment, to be retired in a couple of decades at most, gradually disappeared. In fact, it was extended to every other racial or sexual minority and to women. Even as women and many blacks and other minorities triumphed in the economy and mainstream culture, they were nonetheless deemed eternal victims of pervasive misogyny and racism.

The more tangible the success for women and minorities, the more abstract the notion of “systemic oppression” became. Critical race theorists argued that color-blindness itself was a form of racism; and that all white people, consciously or unconsciously, could not help but be perpetuators of racial hate, whether they intended to or not. That’s how we arrived at a moment when Jon Stewart decided he’d tackle the subject of racial inequality in America by hosting a show called “The Problem With White People,” and when “The 1619 Project” actually argued that the American Revolution was not driven by a desire to be free from Britain but to retain slavery, which Britain threatened.

The poignancy of Coleman Hughes’ new book, The End of Race Politics, lies therefore in the tenacity of his faith in the spirit of 1964. “Color-blindness” is not the best description of this, because of course we continue to see others’ race, just as we will always see someone’s sex. No, as Hughes explains: “To advocate colorblindness is to endorse an ethical principle: we should treat people without regard to race, both in our public policy and private lives.”

That’s a principle the vast majority of Americans, black and white and everything else, support. It was the core principle for Frederick Douglass, Zora Neale Hurston, Martin Luther King Jr, and Bayard Rustin. “If I have advocated the cause of the colored people, it is not because I am a negro, but because I am a man,” insisted Douglass. Henry Highland Garnet — the first African-American to speak in Congress after the passage of the Thirteenth Amendment — even apologized for speaking of various different races, “when in fact there is but one race, as there was but one Adam.”

Fast forward to 2015, when the University of California called the phrase “There is only one race, the human race” a “micro-aggression”; or 2020, when the phrase “All Lives Matter” was deemed evidence of “anti-blackness”. The 21st Century, the brief era of color-blindness behind us, reached back to the 19th to insist that race defines us at our core, can never be overcome, and marks us all either an oppressor or a victim. The left, including the Democratic Party, has now adopted this worldview, along with a legal regime to actively discriminate against some races and not others: “equity”. That’s why Hughes cuts to the chase and calls these reactionaries in progressive clothing “neoracists”. They are. What else would one call them?

They are race-obsessed. They view any human interaction as a racial power-struggle, and compound it with any number of further “intersectional” power-struggles. They do not see two unique individuals with unique life experiences interacting in a free society. They see group identity as determinative everywhere; and therefore want to intervene everywhere, to discriminate against whites and successful non-whites in favor of unsuccessful non-whites. Individual rights? They come second to group identity.

I didn’t grow up in America, and didn’t absorb America’s racial obsessions. But I did grow up in a country which similarly obsessed about another kind of group identity, class. Everything was about class, every statement, every accent, every region, every city, every school, and every job. It ate you up; it could destroy all the other possible vectors of connection with other people; and the obsession with it didn’t actually ameliorate it. In some ways, the more you thought about it, the worse it got. It’s why I loved America: rooted in unleashing the unique individual, uninterested in the recent past, let alone four centuries ago, looking forward with optimism as individuals, not looking back with grudges as groups.

This emphasis on the uniqueness of each individual and his or her potential — regardless of which group they are assigned to — is far from dated. In fact, as a society becomes ever more multi-racial and multi-cultural, and racial groupings splinter and proliferate, and mixed-race people increase in number, the individual is the only unit that won’t lead to permanent, irresolvable conflict. The old black-white paradigm to which so many are still attached has been superseded by the kaleidoscope society, in which “race” is almost always mixed, complicated, or one difference among many.

One in five “black” Americans are immigrants or descended from them, Hughes observes. Only 30 percent of Asian-Americans think of themselves as “Asian” at all, rather as a member of a specific group — like Korean or Indian. Within the Asian box, you also have huge diversity: “In 2015, 72 percent of Indians over 25 had at least a bachelors degree, yet only 9 percent of Bhutanese did.” Ditto “Hispanic”. Any formula that conflates Cubans with Mexicans and Colombians is absurd. And don’t get me started on the LGBTQIA+ bullshit.

The woke also have a staggeringly crude understanding of power. Economic power? No doubt many whites have a huge edge in accumulated wealth in America; but the cultural power of African-Americans is global in reach and far outweighs the cultural clout of, say, white evangelicals or conservatives at home. Political power? Blacks, who are about 14 percent of population, are represented proportionally in the House — covering 29 states — and can claim the last two-term president, the current vice president, the House minority leader, the secretary of defense, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs, the mayors of the four most populous cities last year, and more than a fifth of SCOTUS.

For the neoracists, all racial disparities are entirely explained by “systemic racism”. But this obviously obscures the complexity of American society. “Culture” is a loaded and complex term, but it sure matters. A child with two engaged parents in the home has far more chances to succeed than a kid who barely sees his dad. Now look at the difference between family structure among many Asian-American groups and that of black Americans. And how can one blame “white supremacy” for the constant murderous mayhem of urban black spaces? Only by removing from young black men any concept of their own agency and humanity.

So do we do nothing? Not at all. In fact, blaming an abstraction — “white supremacy” — takes us backwards practically and analytically. Hughes advocates for color-blind processes wherever possible: blind grading in schools and colleges; or hiring policies that remove names from applications to deter racism. A classic color-blind policy would be Chicago’s automated CCTV tracking system for gun-shots, ShotSpotter. Gun-shots have no race; getting quick locations for gun-shots saves lives; and yet this week, the woke mayor of Chicago discontinued the technology because the shooters detected, like most violent criminals in Chicago, were mainly black. Ditto SATs. They are designed to be as race-neutral as possible — which is why they have been attacked.

This is Coleman Hughes’ first book. Like him, it’s methodical, clear as a bell, reasoned, and temperate. He’s clearly trying to win an argument, not impress an audience. The prose is stripped of embellishment and rhetoric; it’s focused entirely in its attempt to persuade. I came to the book persuaded, of course, but it’s really not written for me. It’s written for his Gen Z peers of all races; it offers an escape from our dreary race Manichaeism toward a future of individual agency, flourishing, and creativity. It will be a key test for colleges if they assign this book alongside the usual woke screeds, and allow young Americans to see just how much they have been lied to, and how easily they can, if they decide to, turn this thing around.

There’s reason for optimism. Last year, Pew found that support for BLM had “dropped considerably from its peak in 2020,” and a majority believe that the “racial reckoning” since 2020 “hasn’t led to improvements for Black Americans.” Affirmative action in higher ed was struck down by SCOTUS, and 68 percent of Americans say that is “mostly a good thing.” Kendi’s “antiracism” center has imploded; the “1619 Project” docu-series was panned by audiences; Robin DiAngelo is roundly mocked; Claudine Gay has resigned; and DEI is waning in corporate America.

But the implosion of bad ideas is not the same as the resuscitation of good ones. What Hughes has done in this book is remind us what we already knew: that racism and neoracism are two sides of the same collectivist coin, and that treating everyone regardless of race is the only feasible way forward for a multiracial America, just as it is the only morally defensible regime that can actually counter and erode racial hatred. The proof is in our past progress. But the potential for multi-racial individualism is as unknowable as it is exhilarating.

Know hope.

New On The Dishcast: Nate Silver

Nate is a statistician and writer focused on American politics and sports, and a longtime friend. He was the founder and editor-in-chief of FiveThirtyEight, and he now writes his own substack, Silver Bulletin. He’s the author of The Signal and the Noise, and his forthcoming book is On the Edge: How Successful Gamblers and Risk-Takers Think.

Listen to the episode here. There you can find two clips of our convo — on the pluralism of gay social networks, and why poker is so male. That link also takes you to commentary on our episodes with Isikoff and Klaidman on Trump, and Justin Brierley on the renewed belief in God. Plus, more reader debate over Biden’s age, immigration, and transqueer ideology, with my replies throughout.

Money Quotes For The Week

“Navalny = Trump. The plan of the Biden regime and the Democrats is to ensure their leading political opponent dies in prison. There’s no real difference between the two cases,” – Dinesh D’Souza, off his fucking rocker.

“Because [voters] deserve a DA that won’t have sex with his employees, because they deserve a DA that won’t put money in their own pocket,” – Fani Willis, detailing her reasons for running for office in 2020.

“[The Democratic strategy] has failed to deliver for the people we care about most, the undocumented Americans in this country,” – Senator Chris Murphy.

“The Poles overplayed their hand and forced Hitler to start World War II with them. Why did World War II begin on September 1, 1939, in Poland? It didn’t want to negotiate. Hitler had no other choice but to start bringing his plans to life in Poland,” – Vladimir Putin, president of Russia to Tucker Carlson, who didn’t challenge Putin on this.

“What you also see in that sit-down interview is Tucker Carlson making a series of false comparisons between the US and Hungary, in order to portray Orbàn’s one-party illiberalism as somehow superior to contemporary America. Like Jane Fonda before him, Tucker went to a foreign country to denigrate and smear his own,” – yours truly in August 2021. He hasn’t changed, has he?

“The amount of time we spent talking about [Biden’s age] versus the time we spent reporting on it was not the same. There should have been tougher, more scrutinizing coverage of his age earlier,” – a White House reporter.

“Anti-westernism is, in part, a domestic tactic. Inept or despotic governments tell their populations to blame the global north for their woes. The rest of it is sincere (which isn’t the same as being justified). But in all cases, it targets the intellectual glitch of the west. Still Christian-tinged, the liberal mind is trained to entertain all notions save one: the weak can be wrong, too,” – Janan Ganesh.

Yglesias Award Nominee

“How could I have been so credulous? How could I have not had my guard up? And I think the answer is, I wanted a counter-narrative to the dominant narrative about what happened to George Floyd and the subsequent developments of the summer of 2020,” – Glenn Loury on the documentary The Fall of Minneapolis.

The View From Your Window

Bocas Del Toro, Panama, 10.09 am

Dissents Of The Week

A reader writes:

On the same day that Biden flubbed the “president” of Egypt, Trump made the same mistake with the Prime Minister of Hungary — one of countless flubs that got little coverage. (More importantly, Mike Johnson made the same mistake confusing Israel and Iran.) Did Biden think he was talking to the president of Mexico on the Gaza border? Heck no, and if you listened to the entire remarks, it’s painfully obvious that, in fact, Biden knew exactly what was going on and doesn’t have dementia.

Dementia doesn’t have patches; it’s all consuming. Gaffes and flubs aren’t a sign of dementia. Instead of focusing on gaffes like they’re gospel, I’d rather people follow the reporting we do have on Biden’s interactions, which are many, and they all point roughly towards the same answer: no, Biden does not have dementia; he can do the job; and he’s been pretty damn effective at it.

Let’s concede this point, for the sake of discussion. What about in three or four years’ time? The case for a first term is solid. For a second term in his mid-80s? Not so much. Peggy Noonan made a good point today as well:

[T]he presidency is a speaking role and [Biden] can’t make a sustained case on Ukraine, Israel, illegal immigration, all the great issues. This leaves things confused, without a central voice, and makes people nervous.

Another dissent:

I concur that Biden resembles Mr. Magoo on television. However, I see no evidence that age has impacted his job performance, and I spiritedly challenge you to cite specific examples.

Those of us who recall how skillfully Biden secured passage of the CHIPS Act and the Inflation Reduction Act after it was tanked by Manchin in 2021 notice a pattern: not since LBJ has the White House been occupied by a president this adept at working with the legislature in order to secure his domestic and foreign policy agenda.

Reasonable people can agree or disagree with the president’s agenda. I happen to agree with most of it, and I’m delighted to see how much it has helped average Americans secure work and democracies in three continents to fend off tyrants. There is no evidence that age has reduced Biden’s ability to advance these objectives — even in era of extreme negative partisanship. His skills will be a loss to the country and to democracies everywhere should he not be re-elected.

Another reader quotes me:

“Publicly, [Biden] even keeps saying Beau died in Iraq!” This is so disingenuous. Biden says this because he believed Beau died because of what happened in Iraq:

The president also recalled his son Beau’s military service, saying: “My son spent a year in Iraq; that’s how I lost him.” Biden added during the call: “My son Beau, he [had] been near a burn pit in Baghdad and came down with stage four neuroblastoma, a brain tumor, and lost him, too.” … Beau died of brain cancer, which [Biden] believes was linked to toxic burn pits in Iraq …

One more reader:

You wrote, “RBG’s belief in her own superpowers, and her familiar human resistance to giving up power, led to the end of Roe — a body-blow to her longstanding jurisprudence.” But RBG was a noted critic of the Roe decision. So while her hanging on may have been a body blow to Roe, your characterization seems wrong to me.

Point taken. But she would have voted to keep Roe, had she lived. More dissents are over on the pod page. As always, keep them coming: dish@andrewsullivan.com.

Mental Health Break

A reader writes:

You mentioned evensong in your recent piece on Oxford and Saltburn. This is the official music video for “Evensong 3” by Kevin Kellar. He uses 12th century chanting as a background for electronic music. It’s very relaxing.

In The ‘Stacks

• How scared should we be about space nukes from Russia? Should Poland go nuclear?
• Ross Barkan doubts that the Dem win for Santos’ seat is a bellwether for November. Suozzi and Fetterman are showing the way, counters Teixeira.
• Tucker sucks up to Putin and gets props by the anti-American right. Or are they downright misanthropic? Here’s a reality check on life in Russia.
• The by-elections and polls this week are ominous signs for the Tories. The housing crisis will be a big factor in the next election.
• Fallows questions the narrative that Biden is too old. Erik Hoel fisks a similar op-ed in the NYT.
• Why aren’t we hearing more about the Lakewood Church shooting?
• Finally some good news on the state of academia — in Virginia and at Dartmouth.
• Coleman Hughes and Radley Balko debate whether the hold used on George Floyd was lawful. Balko continues to debunk The Fall of Minneapolis.
• A privilege that isn’t talked about enough is the two-parent kind.
• Filipovic doesn’t buy the conservative line that elites are “marriage hypocrites.”
• Few things are more cringe than white celebrities with racialized false modesty.
• A debate over male horniness and female neediness, continued here.
• Olga Khazan breaks down why polyamory is increasingly popular.
• Evan Marc Katz, a dating coach, addresses the question, “Is it racist to have racial preferences in dating?”
• Ben Sixsmith sizes up the state of male friendship.

The View From Your Window Contest

Where do you think? Email your entry to contest@andrewsullivan.com. Please put the location — city and/or state first, then country — in the subject line. Bonus points for fun facts and stories. Proximity counts. The deadline for entries is Wednesday night at midnight (PST). The winner gets the choice of a View From Your Window book or two annual Dish subscriptions.

See you next Friday.