As I read this article, the reminder that “context matters” resonated strongly with me. This highlights that the law should not be divorced from the historical conditions and inequalities it was designed to confront.
Through the lens of “colorblindness” treating all racial classifications the same risks ignoring the structural and historical realities that still shape people’s lives today. This tension makes Equal Protection doctrine feel less like a neutral set of rules and more like an ongoing negotiation over whose vision of justice the Constitution should embody.
Through the lens of “anti-subordination” considerable risks are involved in implementing a pick-and-choose application of race across a variety of issues. This could open a floodgate of issues in determining when its use is appropriate.
Ultimately, if the Court increasingly embraces one view over the other, I would argue that decided interpretation risks turning the Equal Protection Clause into a tool that may further entrench inequality rather than dismantles it.
You’re right that context matters, but also that letting the law use race can raise tough questions about when and how. That’s really what Equal Protection comes down to: one path risks ignoring history, the other risks constant debate over remedies. The harder question is which risk the Court should be more willing to take.
I feel like colorblindness is the most practical stance for the law to take, as the anti-subordination stance lends itself to endless debate about when and how the government should take race into account. Who would make those decisions and under what standards? What exactly would constitute a suitable remedy for past injustices? Not that I disagree with the purpose of the anti-subordination stance, just that it would create never-ending causes to question and potentially litigate government decisions.
I see why colorblindness feels more practical. But the tradeoff is that it treats all race-based laws the same. Under a colorblind approach, a Jim Crow law that enforced segregation and an affirmative action policy that expands access are both viewed with equal suspicion, simply because they use race. When we get to Equal Protection, that’s the core question: should the law focus only on the use of race, or also on the purpose and history behind it?
As I read this article, the reminder that “context matters” resonated strongly with me. This highlights that the law should not be divorced from the historical conditions and inequalities it was designed to confront.
Through the lens of “colorblindness” treating all racial classifications the same risks ignoring the structural and historical realities that still shape people’s lives today. This tension makes Equal Protection doctrine feel less like a neutral set of rules and more like an ongoing negotiation over whose vision of justice the Constitution should embody.
Through the lens of “anti-subordination” considerable risks are involved in implementing a pick-and-choose application of race across a variety of issues. This could open a floodgate of issues in determining when its use is appropriate.
Ultimately, if the Court increasingly embraces one view over the other, I would argue that decided interpretation risks turning the Equal Protection Clause into a tool that may further entrench inequality rather than dismantles it.
You’re right that context matters, but also that letting the law use race can raise tough questions about when and how. That’s really what Equal Protection comes down to: one path risks ignoring history, the other risks constant debate over remedies. The harder question is which risk the Court should be more willing to take.
I feel like colorblindness is the most practical stance for the law to take, as the anti-subordination stance lends itself to endless debate about when and how the government should take race into account. Who would make those decisions and under what standards? What exactly would constitute a suitable remedy for past injustices? Not that I disagree with the purpose of the anti-subordination stance, just that it would create never-ending causes to question and potentially litigate government decisions.
I see why colorblindness feels more practical. But the tradeoff is that it treats all race-based laws the same. Under a colorblind approach, a Jim Crow law that enforced segregation and an affirmative action policy that expands access are both viewed with equal suspicion, simply because they use race. When we get to Equal Protection, that’s the core question: should the law focus only on the use of race, or also on the purpose and history behind it?