Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Law Commons

Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Cedric M. Powell

Colorblind constitutionalism

Articles 1 - 2 of 2

Full-Text Articles in Law

Rhetorical Neutrality: Colorblindness, Frederick Douglass, And Inverted Critical Race Theory, Cedric Merlin Powell Feb 2019

Rhetorical Neutrality: Colorblindness, Frederick Douglass, And Inverted Critical Race Theory, Cedric Merlin Powell

Cedric M. Powell

Rhetorical Neutrality refers to the middle ground approach adopted by the Supreme Court in its race jurisprudence. This Article examines rhetorical neutrality as evinced in the narratives espoused in the opinions of Justices O'Connor and Thomas. In Grutter, both Justices employ neutral approaches, rooted in colorblindness. However, the underlying rhetoric, or how their reasoning is expressed in their respective opinions, is strikingly distinct. Neither Justice advances a remedial approach; both Justices start with the premise that race is inherently suspect, but their approaches diverge because they view colorblind neutrality in fundamentally distinct ways.


Harvesting New Conceptions Of Equality: Opportunity, Results, And Neutrality, Cedric M. Powell Oct 2011

Harvesting New Conceptions Of Equality: Opportunity, Results, And Neutrality, Cedric M. Powell

Cedric M. Powell

This is a critical period in the Court’s history; there is a doctrinal shift from the Rehnquist Court’s colorblind constitutionalism to the Roberts Court’s post-racial universalism. The Fourteenth Amendment and Title VII have been inverted: under the Fourteenth Amendment, whites are the new discrete and insular minority to be protected from a result-oriented “racial” process; and, under Title VII, disparate impact is irrelevant in the absence of a “strong basis in evidence” to believe that there will be liability. In a very direct way, the Court’s race jurisprudence privileges reverse discrimination suits. To advance the critique of the Court’s doctrinal …