Is Racial Colorblindness a Good or Bad Thing?

Source: Smuldur/Pixabay

There are disagreements among social scientists about what it means to be racially “colorblind” and whether it’s a good or bad thing (Selterman, 2023; Whitley et al., 2023; Wingfield, 2015). Some define it as an aspiration to treat people equally regardless of their race, whereas others regard it as a form of prejudice in which White people deny the existence of racism and downplay racial inequalities.

In the latest round of this debate, Charles Collins and Camille Walsh took the latter position in a blog post titled “Unveiling White Privilege” (May 22, 2024), based on their 2024 study in the Journal of Social Issues. The authors wrote that in a colorblind view, White people overlook the “systemic barriers that marginalized groups face” and attribute racial inequalities to characteristics internal to the racial groups. For example, to explain the racial wealth gap, one could argue that “White people simply work harder.”

What’s in a Word?

On the one hand, “colorblind” is just a label, and researchers can define it how they want. Then, they can measure and study it based on their definition, as Collins and Walsh did in their research. The authors cited multiple previous studies in their methodological decisions.

On the other hand, defining “colorblind” narrowly and matter-of-factly without mentioning an ongoing debate can be misleading. It can unfairly stereotype anyone who espouses a “colorblind” attitude and potentially dissuade some readers from pursuing even the antiracist elements of a “colorblind” philosophy.

Despite this labeling issue and other limitations I will note about Collins and Walsh’s research, the study was very informative, with relevant historical examples. Their research helps to keep societal attention on serious racial issues and offers educational suggestions to improve racial equality.

A Conclusion With Little Meaning

Collins and Walsh measured “colorblind” attitudes in White adults by using a “denying institutional discrimination” scale attributed to Neville and colleagues (2000), who actually called it “unawareness of institutional discrimination.” Participants were rated as more colorblind the more they agreed (or less they disagreed) that it’s White people who are discriminated against, that racial and ethnic minorities have advantages, and that immigrants need to fit into U.S. culture.

The main results were that colorblind participants reported less awareness of White privilege and fewer antiracist practices. Although this might seem important, a statement that people with an “unawareness of institutional discrimination” also have an unawareness of White privilege sounds like a tautology (just saying the same thing twice). Institutional discrimination (against non-White groups) is how White privilege works. In methodological terms, the two measures strongly overlapped (and had some similar items).

Similarly, if one denies or is unaware of racism, then it seems a forgone conclusion that this is a person who does not engage in antiracist practices. Why would someone ever work against racism if they don’t think it exists?

Psychologist and fellow PT contributor Dylan Selterman (2023) similarly argued that results like these are “no surprise” when researchers define colorblindness as “the worst possible manifestation of a colorblind worldview.” In sum, Collins and Walsh’s research may add minimal new information about racial attitudes.

Risk of False-Cause Fallacy

Despite Collins and Walsh’s results being correlational, the authors consistently reported the results in cause-effect terms. For example, the authors wrote that colorblind attitudes “hindered” participants’ antiracist behavior and “blinded them” to understanding White privilege. But correlation does not mean causation (Stalder, 2018a), which the authors eventually acknowledged in a brief note, but they still added that their cause-effect interpretations were “theoretically sound.”

Among possible alternative interpretations, a colorblind view can be an after-the-fact rationalization for inaction rather than a cause of it. Cognitive dissonance theory predicts that our expressed attitudes often follow from our questionable behaviors as a way to justify our behaviors (Festinger, 1957). The authors themselves even conveyed this general idea when they wrote that a colorblind view “gives White people an alibi for inaction.”

Race and Ethnicity Essential Reads

Does Black History Matter for Black Americans’ Wellness?

How Black Men Became Invisible Sexual Harassment Survivors

Racist Colorblindness

Source: CDC/Pexels

In fairness, there have been individuals and movements that seemed to purposely hide racist intentions by claiming a form of racial colorblindness in actions that hurt non-White groups, such as some efforts to stop racial integration in schools (Collins and Walsh, 2024). And it can certainly be harmful to attribute racial inequalities to the internal characteristics of the marginalized groups. Victim blaming carries multiple negative consequences (Harber et al., 2015).

These aspects of racial colorblindness can fairly be called “racist” and deserve investigation. But racist colorblindness is only one type of racial colorblindness and is separate from at least two other types that do not appear racist, one of which even appears antiracist (Whitley et al., 2023).

Other Types of Racial Colorblindness

Through a process known as factor analysis, Whitley and colleagues (2023) identified three distinct factors, or types, of racial colorblindness: equality orientation, color evasion, and rejection of racial categorization. The items on the color evasion scale overlapped somewhat with Collins and Walsh’s scale and were associated with greater racism and colder attitudes toward marginalized groups.

On the other hand, equality orientation was associated with less racism and warmer attitudes. Rejection of racial categorization showed mostly zero correlations, though was also associated with slightly warmer attitudes. Whitley and colleagues concluded that racial colorblindness is “multifaceted” and conveyed that some of the research that claims racial colorblindness reflects racist views may be painting a skewed picture.

In Sum

In general, researchers who infer racist intentions behind racial colorblindness don’t seem to mention alternative research-based views. It’s similar to those who automatically infer racist attitudes behind microaggressions and high scores on the Implicit Association Test (Stalder, 2018b). Science works better by acknowledging the other side, even if it complicates the story. You don’t have to agree with the other side to mention it in a research paper.

Based on the entirety of the research record, simply espousing an approach with the label “colorblind” does not necessarily reflect racist views. Antiracist efforts would probably be aided by welcoming would-be helpers who are the good kind of racially colorblind.