He Looks Like a Big Flag

This chapter traces the articulation of colorblindness as a coherent ideology around the issues of busing and affirmative action in the years between 1974 and 1978. The chapter offers a close reading of Rocky, highlighting the manner in which the film offers race-conscious images and implications to colorblind political discourse. Just as the political struggles over integration produced a coherent colorblind ideology, they also, through Rocky, reflected the first appearance of Hollywood’s colorblind aesthetics. Rocky was instrumental in shaping colorblindness, which was fundamental in the opposition to affirmative action and busing. This analysis of Rocky highlights the integral role Hollywood played in both the white backlash of the late 1970s and the articulation of colorblindness. The chapter then turns to the intersection of the rise of colorblindness and neoliberalism. Ultimately, it argues that neoliberal thought gained momentum in the 1970s because it offered solutions to two problems: first, to the economic sluggishness of the decade, and second, perhaps more importantly, to the broad “problem” of excessive government intervention and to matters of racial inequality specifically.

Keep Away from Me, Mr. Welfare Man

This chapter examines Third World Cinema’s first film, Claudine, within the context of the emerging colorblind ideology and widespread antistatism of the early 1970s. It begins with an overview of the racialization of welfare discourse beginning in the 1960s. The chapter then analyzes the film through three lenses. The first is TWC’s larger philosophy, rooted in the integrationist ethos of the civil rights movement. The second is a close analysis of the film itself, focusing on how the movie offers a black nationalist critique of the welfare state and Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society that includes a direct rebuke of colorblindness. Finally, despite TWC’s civil rights origins and the film’s race-conscious black nationalist politics, the film’s marketing catered explicitly to colorblind sentiments, thereby contradicting the racial critique of the film.

The Law Is Crazy!

This chapter examines the intersection of colorblindness and antistatism in New Hollywood exploitation films of the early 1970s. Focusing on Dirty Harry (1971) and Coffy (1973), the chapter explores how the success of New Hollywood relied in part on its ability to function as a laboratory for the development of colorblind ideology. Together, these films, similar in genre but marketed to vastly different audiences, reveal the disparate ends colorblind rhetoric served in the first half of the 1970s. Both appealed to emerging colorblind sentiments and helped shape the antistatist ethos of the early decade while reinforcing popular and dehumanizing notions of blackness. That ethos provided the necessary foundation on which colorblindness would gain traction in the ensuing years.

Combating the “Too Sensitive” Argument: A Demonstration That Captures the Complexity of Microaggressions

Colorblind ideology provides individuals with numerous ways to minimize racism. This poses a challenge for instructors who teach about race and racism as students deploy this ideology to derail classroom discussions. Student resistance may be amplified when discussing microaggressions because students often characterize focusing on microaggressions as being “too sensitive” or trying to see racism where it does not exist. This article details a demonstration that attempts to move students past the too-sensitive argument so they can understand the complexity of microaggressions. An analysis of anonymous student reflections shows that the activity successfully conveys the cumulative impact of microaggressions, demonstrates how racism is embedded in everyday interactions, and encourages students to reflect on their own role in perpetuating and ending racism. In short, the demonstration helped students understand the structural and cumulative nature of microaggressions by combating the too-sensitive argument and encouraging a critical examination of racism.

Discourse within University Presidents’ Responses to Racism: Revealing Patterns of Power and Privilege

Background Recent incidents of racism at predominantly White institutions (PWIs) have gained increased national attention. The backlash to individuals speaking out against racialized practices is often masked through discourse that dismisses the adverse effects of racism. Because university administrators often center their responses to incidents of racism on upholding free speech, scholars should analyze the ways that administrators’ responses might reinforce the existence of such racist behaviors and affect marginalized students. Purpose and Research Questions Rather than placing the burden on students to disrupt institutionalized racism, the author critically analyzed the discourse administrators utilized in their responses to understand the role of power in language. The following research questions informed the study: (a) what are the various characteristics of the discourse of university administrators as they respond to incidents of racism? and (b) how do university administrators’ responses to racism support or disrupt larger patterns of social power and privilege? Research Design The author utilized critical discourse analysis (CDA) to deconstruct relationships between the speech patterns of university presidents and larger Discourses about social power. Through a process of description, interpretation, and explanation, the author sought to reveal the underlying ideologies that go beyond surface-level discourse about free speech. Data Collection and Analysis Based on the context of increased police brutality and student protests on college campuses, the author reviewed data on recent incidents of racism at PWIs. The three final cases chosen for analysis represented varying approaches utilized by administrators to respond to racist incidents. Through multiple phases of coding, the author interpreted relationships between textual patterns to reveal a larger narrative about administrative accountability. Findings Each university president utilized a different approach to campus racism. The major discourse patterns represented were (a) a direct reproach of individuals as accountable for racism; (b) an indirect and theoretical approach to the reality of racism; and (c) a denial of or diversion from racism through authority. Conclusions and Recommendations Across the cases, administrators utilized speech that either downplayed the existence of racism or defined it through privilege or colorblind ideology. With the last incident resulting in the firing of the president, the analysis revealed ways that presidents can utilize emotional speech without substantial action. In order to be more responsive to marginalized communities, administrators need to intentionally engage with marginalized groups who are often silenced because their beliefs do not fit the standard of the dominant norm.

Colorblind Racism: Identities, Ideologies, and Shifting Subjectivities

Sociologists have recently begun to recognize the need to more deeply examine the mechanisms of contemporary colorblind racism, to move beyond frame identification and glean new insights. This is important because as racial dynamics evolve, so will the ideologies and discourses that surround them. This article considers how we might be able to untangle ideology, racism, discourse, and the material realities of our wider social systems. It also introduces the themes in this Special Issue that parse ideals from ideologies, that consider individual subjectivities as they emerge in different social contexts, and that examine strategies for grappling with the realities of racism. This allows us to trace the connections between colorblind ideology and racism more broadly, giving us traction to potentially use this knowledge to sharpen our resistance to racism.