Sam Alito’s Math on “Color-Blindness” Doesn’t Check Out
The Supreme Court's recent ruling in Louisiana v. Callais has significantly narrowed the application of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. The decision is based on the flawed premise that colorblind policies lead to fair outcomes. Research indicates that even in a colorblind scenario, systemic inequalities persist due to social network dynamics.
- ▪The Supreme Court's ruling on April 29 limited the effectiveness of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.
- ▪The majority opinion relies on the incorrect belief that colorblindness ensures justice and fairness.
- ▪Mathematical research shows that smaller minority groups face fewer opportunities due to social network discrimination.
Opening excerpt (first ~120 words) tap to expand
Jurisprudence Sam Alito’s Math on “Color-Blindness” Doesn’t Check Out By Chika Okafor May 22, 20265:45 AM Photo illustration by Slate. Photo by Tiziana Fabi/AFP via Getty Images. Copy Link Share Share Comment Copy Link Share Share Comment Sign up for Executive Dysfunction, a newsletter that highlights one under-the-radar story each week about how Trump is changing the law—or how the law is pushing back. You’ll also receive updates on the latest from Slate’s Jurisprudence team. Less than one lifetime ago, courageous protesters—Black women and men—were brutally attacked on Edmund Pettus Bridge by police officers with tear gas and billy clubs. These protesters sacrificed their own safety to secure something deemed even more sacred: their right to vote.
…
Excerpt limited to ~120 words for fair-use compliance. The full article is at Slate.
Discussion
0 commentsMore from Slate
