Was Blind, But Now I See: White Race Concsiousness and the Law

4. Constitutional Qualms

[4] Constitutional Qualm s IBELIEVE THE PROPOSAL set fort h i n chapte r 3 i s adopt able , in the sense that i t is consistent with Equa l Protec tion principle s an d wit h wha t w e kno w abou t transparentl y white decisionmaking , th e proble m i t wa s designe d t o ad dress . However, som e constitutional scholar s would disagre e with th e first o f thos e propositions , an d i n additio n migh t argue tha t thi s proposa l i s inconsisten t wit h a principl e o f judicial restraint tha t toda y affect s virtuall y al l constitutiona l analysis. Thi s chapte r addresse s i n tur n thes e tw o source s o f resistance t o the proposed transparency-consciou s rule . The Meaning of Equal Protection The propose d rul e clearl y abandon s th e colorblindnes s prin ciple , whic h disapprove s an y us e o f a race-specifi c criterio n of decision , n o matte r wha t th e rac e o f th e decisionmake r o r of th e person s respectivel y advantage d o r burdene d b y tha t 66 Constitutional Qualms 167 criterion. First, the proposed rul e is founded o n the presump tion tha t faciall y neutra l criteri a o f decisio n employe d b y white decisionmakers ar e in fact race-specific ; the rule at leas t challenges th e assumptio n o f th e colorblindnes s perspectiv e that suc h a thin g a s a raciall y neutra l criterio n o f decisio n i s possible. Second, the rule permits government to take respon sibility fo r disparat e racia l effect s b y adoptin g paralle l race conscious criteri a o f decisio n i n appropriat e instances . Fi nally , though th e proposed rul e doe s resemble colorblindnes s insofar a s i t mandate s heightene d scrutin y i n th e interes t o f mitigating th e race-base d effect s o f som e covertl y race-spe cific criteri a o f decision , i t doe s s o onl y whe n thos e effect s flow fro m transparentl y white-specific base s of decision. Tha t is, th e rul e contemplate s heightene d judicia l scrutin y onl y when ostensibl y neutra l criteri a formulate d o r deploye d b y white governmenta l decisionmaker s operat e t o disadvantag e nonwhites. I t i s no t symmetrical ; heightene d scrutin y i s no t appropriate whe n blac k governmenta l decisionmaker s for mulate an d appl y faciall y neutra l criteri a tha t negativel y im pact whites . A transparency-conscious disparat e impact rule should no t be symmetrica l becaus e transparenc y itsel f i s a white-specifi c phenomenon. I n ou r societ y onl y white s hav e th e socia l power tha t render s ou r poin t o f vie w perspectiveless , tha t elevates ou r expectation s t o th e statu s o f "neutral " norms , and tha t permit s u s t o se e ourselve s an d ou r race-specifi c characteristics a s raceless . Assumin g ther e are , o r ca n be , meaningful instance s i n whic h nonwhite s gai n th e powe r t o formulate a s well a s to appl y governmenta l rule s o f decision , the existence of any disparate negative effect o n whites woul d Constitutional Qualms 168 trigger at minimum an immediate inquiry, by whites, into the possible racia l component s o f suc h faciall y neutra l rules . Thus, in this society, nonwhite decisionmaking never benefit s from transparency . Nevertheless, colorblindness i s such a powerful nor m tha t many wil l se e it s abandonmen t a s a seriou s defec t o f th e proposed rule . Further reflection wil l demonstrate, however , that colorblindnes s...