A Monthly Conversation with Boston University Law Professor Jonathan Feingold & WNHN host Arnie Arnesen about race and racism from a place of humility, commitment and curiosity.

Episodes

  • 04.26.24

    On Wednesday Apr. 24, House Speaker Mike Johnson announced he would tour Columbia University and host a news conference to discuss “the troubling rise of virulent antisemitism on America’s college campuses.” Just ten days’ prior, Johnson (a noted Christian Nationalist) appeared alongside Donald Trump for a press conference that “echoed language from the racist [and antisemitic] great replacement theory.” With his pivot to Columbia and feigned concern over anti-semitism, one might say Mike Johnson is engaging in “identity politics” and playing a “Jewish card.”

    He is far from alone. Since October 7th, individuals and entities across the political spectrum have mobilized Jewish identity to wage ideological battles over competing visions of life at home and abroad. With a nod to Carbado & Gulati’s concept of “working identity,” we identify four ways that Jewish identity is being mobilized in this moment: The Comrade. The Sword. The Shield. The Cynic.

    [Teaser: Mike Johnson’s behavior falls into that last category. Also very disappointed we didn't have time to discuss "The Parrot" -- aka how certain Democrats and Biden officials continue to parrot GOP talking points.]

  • 03.28.24

    One increasingly encounters the claim that anti-Semitism is on the rise and progressive politics are to blame. For anyone familiar with Christopher Rufo’s unapologetic smear campaigns against CRT and DEI, there is a reflex to dismiss both claims as somewhat obvious propaganda. That reflex makes sense, but it invites two risks: one analytical, one political. The analytical risk entails discounting actual evidence of anti-Semitism. The political risk entails alienating allies who hold legitimate concerns about anti-Semitism past and present.

    To guard against these risks, we take seriously both claims. We then discuss our provisional conclusions. First, it is likely that students whose dress signals Jewish identity (e.g., wearing a Kippah or Star of David) are increasingly likely to encounter hostility or negative attitudes on campus. Second, rightwing Jewish organizations are responsible, in large part, for this hostility. Here’s why: Through their rhetoric and behavior, including the rigid claim that anti-Zionism is per se anti-Semitism, these organizations have hardened the conceptual link between Jewish identity and Israel’s current assault on Palestinian life. As a result, symbols of Jewishness are increasingly perceived as symbols of anti-Palestinian animus. To better understand how rightwing rhetoric fuels this new anti-Semitism (which renders vulnerable Jewish students who are orthodox and anti-Zionist), we turn to Khaled Beydoun’s scholarship on islamophobia.

  • 02.29.24

    In this episode, we explore two things that Brown v. Board of Education and DEI have in common.

    The first is the story we know well. Both Brown and DEI have been openly vilified by the Right—a history that spans the Southern Manifesto to an ongoing assault on racial diversity.

    The second is the story that’s almost never told. The Supreme Court’s most celebrated decision and contemporary efforts to diversify elite institutions valorize and center whiteness—often in ways that naturalize longstanding patterns of racial inequality in the United States.

    The answer isn’t to disown Brown or demean inclusionary commitments. But we have to tell the full story. That includes a story about how many of our most prized equality-oriented achievements can undermine the very goal of racial equality.

  • 01.25.24

    Rightwing personalities are blaming DEI (“diversity, equity, inclusion”) for everything from broken Boeings and bankrupt banks to a flaccid military and train derailments. These are facially unserious claims. Yet they resonate with much of the public. One might say they enjoy a common-sense logic that pits diversity against excellence.

    We explore two factors that feed rightwing DEI smears: (1) engrained racial narratives that rationalize inequality and (2) the Left--specifically, liberal institutions that also rationalize inequality—even when doing so undermines their own DEI policies. To concretize the latter dynamic, we highlight how elite universities rarely acknowledge all the ways their admissions processes function as preferential treatment for white (often wealthy) applicants.

  • 12.07.23

    On Dec. 5, the U.S. House passed HR 894, which states that “anti-Zionism is antisemitism.” On the same day, House Republicans charged the presidents of Harvard, Penn and MIT with institutional “cultures” that “foster [antisemitism] because you have faculty and students who hate Jews, hate Israel and are comfortable apologizing for terror.” As Noah Zatz recently observed, both claims rely on a logical leap that requires “conflating the Israeli state with its Jewish residents in conjunction with metaphors of destruction.”

    Building on Zatz’s analysis, we interrogate the claim that anti-Zionism is anti-Semitism. Even recognizing that criticism targeting Israel can be antisemitic, the now-bipartisan claim that anti-Zionism equals anti-Semitism raises at least three serious concerns: (1) it is analytically fraught; (2) it is potentially dangerous for Jews and others (in part because it foments social division and can feed white supremacist ideologies like great replacement theory) and (c) it is a predictable and strategic effort to silence dissent and discredit antiracist movements in the United States and beyond and abroad.

Special Guest

  • 10.26.23

    On October 7, Hamas launched horrifying and unprecedent attacks targeting Israeli civilians and continues to hold Israeli hostages. Israel responded within an ongoing assault on Gaza that includes airstrikes and a blockade on humanitarian aid. Current estimates suggest that over 1,400 people have died in Israel and nearly 6,000 in Gaza.

    The conflict remains agonizing front-page news. And yet it feels as if we—the public, media, politicians—are incapable of really talking about what’s happening in Israel and Gaza. One reason is that this conflict, like many others, is racialized. This dynamic shapes how we process, perceive, and engage with the conflict—often in ways we do not see. Professor Sahar Aziz, an expert on authoritarianism, terrorism, and rule of law in the Middle East, joins #RaceClass to help us explore how the world continues to racialize the conflict in Israel and Gaza.

    #RaceClass Recs: The Racial Muslim (Aziz); Teach-In on Gaza (CSRR); Traces of the Master Narrative (Ikemoto)

Special Guest

  • 09.28.23

    In this special hour-long episode, Professor Victor Ray joins us to discuss racial education, structural racism, identity politics and his recent book "On Critical Race Theory."

  • 08.26.23

    In SFFA v. Harvard, the Supreme Court narrowed a university’s ability to consider the racial identity of individual students during admissions. Justice Roberts also emphasized that universities may consider each student’s personal experiences with race or racism. Many schools have responded by adding admissions essays that prompt students to share how race or racism affects their lives.

    In this episode, we explore a basic question: Why ask about race? (Full disclosure: We're concerned that many schools are spending more time wordsmithing their essay prompt than thinking hard about why the question matters.)

    To help, we explore three answers: (1) academic “merit” includes racial literacy; (2) holistic review requires a full picture of each student’s lived experience; and (3) enrolling students with diverse experiences with racism means more learning for all.

  • 07.27.23

    For our 20th Episode, we circle back to the beginning. In Episode 1, we asked why the mainstream press struggled so mightily to call the GOP’s campaign of discriminatory censorship what it is: an unapologetic assault on free speech. Unfortunately, little has changed. 18 months later, and much of the press remains mired in a dysfunctional and dangerous “free speech debate.”

    To correct that narrative, we dive into a Newsweek op-ed that Prof. Feingold published with renown critical theorists Professors Athena Mutua and Angela Harris, all members of the Critical (Legal) Collective. They identify four troubling dynamics that continue to distort our national “free speech” conversations: (1) misdiagnosing the crisis; (2) presuming universities can’t take sides; (3) selective sympathy for conservative viewpoints; (4) disdain for students. The upshot: there is a free speech crisis. Unless we see it or name it, we shouldn’t expect to survive it.

    #RaceClass Reqs: The Real Threat to Free Speech is Coming from the Right

  • 06.30.23

    The opinion dropped. As we expected, conservative Justices invoked the claim that race-conscious policies stigmatize and mismatch their beneficiaries. Both claims have attracted sustained critique. But they still enjoy traction in the popular press and shape our national affirmative action conversations.

    In this episode, we explore the racialized presumptions that anchor both claims. Consider the following. White men are routinely admitted to Harvard and other elite schools with lower mean test scores than their Asian American counterparts. Per stigma theory, all white men on campus should face a presumption of intellectual inferiority. Per the "mismatch" hypothesis, all those white men with lower scores would better off at "less competitive" schools. It’s hard to imagine anyone buying that. So why do parallel claims about stigma and mismatch, when directed at affirmative action and Black students, appear intuitive and obvious to so many?

    #RaceClass Reqs: Mismatched or Counted Out (Hawkins), Empirical Scholars Brief (Thaxton et al.); Cracking the Egg (Onwuachi-Willig et al.)

  • 05.26.23

    Next month, the Supreme Court will likely ban universities from considering the racial identity of individual applicants. Many schools will seek “race-neutral alternatives” to retain a racially diverse student body. One likely alternative will be to consider each student’s class status (but not their racial identity)—or what Prof. Cheryl Harris has termed “class-NOT-race” admissions policies.

    If we want fair admissions, we should consider a student’s class status. But it’s a mistake to think class-based policies do the work of race-based policies. We would never think middle-class status insulates women from sexism. So why would we think middle-class status insulates people of color from racism.

    And here’s the kicker. The ultimate beneficiaries of class-NOT-race policies are not poor white students. Rather, they are wealthy white applicants and elite institutions, the individuals and entities who the status quo already favors.

    #RaceClass Reqs: “All (Poor) Lives Matter”

  • 04.28.23

    Recent events have sparked well-worn debates about racial profiling. When these conversations arise, we often hear the claim that racial profiling is “rational.” We’re skeptical. Why? Because this claim rests on two faulty assumptions: (1) that we have accurate information in our heads & (2) that accurate information rationally shapes our behavior.

    Even were those assumptions correct, racial profiling also raises critical moral questions that rarely enter our national dialogue. What numbers justify profiling? Do we apply the same standard to different groups? What’s the proper unit of analysis? Are white men exempt?

    Racial profiling is not rational. Nor does racial profiling make us safer. But here's one clear consequence: racial profiling signals who is an insider worthy of America’s protection, and who is an outside that America will sacrifice for the “greater good.”

    #RaceClass Reqs: American Islamophobia (Beydoun) & Seeing Through Colorblindness (Kang & Lane)

Special Guest

  • 03.25.23

    Consider the following two sentences:

    “White students are often over-represented on elite college campuses.”
    “Students racialized as white are often over-represented on elite college campuses.”

    The first might seem unobjectionable. The second might seem awkward and jargony. The challenge is, the phrase “white students” implies that “white” is some natural (perhaps even biological) trait that some people inherently possess. This contradicts the basic insight that race isn’t biological—to the contrary, people created “race” to rationalize social inequality and acts of extreme violence (including enslavement and conquest). Even if we know race is socially constructed, when our language treats racial categories as natural, it invites the conclusion that group-based inequality is also natural. So shifting language isn’t just about the words. It’s also the meaning those words convey. Thankfully, Dr. Deadric Williams, an Assistant Professor of Sociology at the University of Tennessee, joined #RaceClass to make it all make sense. For more insight from Dr. Williams, visit his website or follow him on Twitter.

    #RaceClass Reqs: (1) A Call to Focus on Racial Domination and Oppression (Williams); (2) Family Structure, Risks, and Racial Stratification in Poverty (Williams & Baker)

  • 02.25.23

    Words matter. In April 2022, the College Board’s AP African American studies curriculum referenced the word “systemic” 9 times; “reparations” 15 times; “intersectionality” 19 times. By Feb. 2023, following pressure from DeSantis and others, those words had vanished from the AP curriculum (to be precise, “reparations” and “intersectionality” still appear one time each).

    We might ask: Why do words like “systemic” threaten folks like DeSantis? The answer is simple. These words, and the ideas they carry, help us explain why racial inequality persists years after American Apartheid fell. And without these words, it becomes much easier to justify present-day inequities as legitimate and just.

    To highlight the power of words, we explore a recent study from Dr. Jayanti Owens (Yale SOM). Dr. Owens asked an enduring question: What drives racial inequality in school discipline? Her findings are revealing. Part of the answer is individual-level teacher biases. But that’s not the whole story. Organizational culture also matters. In more punitive school settings, all students—irrespective of race—are viewed as more “blameworthy” for engaging in identical misconduct. The upshot’s clear. If racial equality is the goal, eliminating individual-level biases will never be enough. We must also attend to organizational culture and all the other systemic forces that continue to shape our world.

  • 02.3.23

    On May 17, 2022 #RaceClass recorded a special episode in response to the Buffalo Race Massacre. We explore how increasingly common political rhetoric from rightwing entities laid the ideological groundwork for an act of racial terrorism that was as predictable as it was deplorable.

  • 01.26.23

    $4 Billion. That’s how much the 2021 American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) earmarked for Black farmers and other farmers of color.* Sound high? Low? Consider this. Over the 20th Century, Black farmers lost 90% of their land. This loss stemmed from pervasive violence, intimidation and discrimination—what we term “conspiratorial sabotage”—by private and public actors, including the federal government. A recent study valued that land loss at $326 billion. But Black farmers never saw a dime from the ARPA. After it passed, rightwing law firms (including Stephen Miller’s America First Legal) sued—arguing the law amounted to unlawful anti-white discrimination. Multiple courts enjoined the funds. Congress repealed and replaced. $326 billion. The debt remains unpaid.

    *The ARPA also allocated $14 billion to eligible airlines.

    #RaceClass Reqs: How the Government Helped White Americans Steal Black Farmland (Francis et al.)

  • 01.03.23

    In the final episode of 2022, we reflect on the ongoing campaign to defund and discredit public education in America. In 2022, a network of rightwing think tanks, donors, and officials doubled-down on anti-literacy bills and book bans while often deploying rhetoric that defames the LGBTQ+ community, demonizes Critical Race Theory, and denigrates “wokeness.” The mainstream press locates these efforts within a broader educational “culture war.” This framing risks downplaying the actual stakes and legitimizing an anti-democratic agenda.

    So we asked the media: if we’re stuck with the “culture war” narrative, at least tell us what each “culture” believes in. Turns out it’s straightforward. This is a battle between justice and injustice. But don’t take our word for it. According to Ryan Newman, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis’s general counsel, “woke” refers to “the belief there are systemic injustices in American society and the need to address them.” Sometimes it is that simple.

  • 11.30.22

    “Race is a social construct.” The phrase is easy to say. But often we struggle to explain what it means.

    To deepen our racial literacy, we dig into one of the socially constructed components of race: the meanings (e.g., stereotypes) associated with a given racial category. Racial meanings do more than ascribe traits (e.g., industrious, lazy, deserving, undeserving) to a particular group. Racial meanings also explain and legitimize a group’s relative social status. In so doing, race narrates our world—often without us even knowing it.

  • 10.30.23

    On Halloween, the Supreme Court will hear two cases challenging the legality of race-conscious admissions. The cases feature a common plaintiff, Students for Fair Admissions, which is funded by conservative activists and wants to ban universities from ever considering an applicant's race. This extreme request would overturn decades of precedent and constitutionalize racial advantages for White applicants. The outcome is all but guaranteed: the Supreme Court's rightwing majority will eliminate race-conscious admissions in higher education.

    But ironically, the plaintiff's own arguments call for more affirmative action, not less. Specifically, the plaintiff exposes how ostensibly colorblind components of Harvard's admissions process privilege wealthy white applicants over more qualified students of color--including Asian Americans. This shouldn't surprise us. But to verify, we do some math. And the verdict is clear. The party attacking affirmative action just made the case for affirmative action.

  • 10.03.22

    The Supreme Court’s rightwing majority is poised to prohibit all public and private universities from considering an applicant’s race – even if doing so is necessary to maintain an integrated campus; promote an objective, individualized and merit-based process; or create an equal learning environment. When the Supreme Court ends affirmative action in higher education, the majority will claim that the Fourteenth Amendment, Title VI and Brown v. Board command it.

    So we asked, how does this (expected) outcome stack up against Dobbs and other recent opinions critiqued as lawless, ends-oriented results untethered to the Constitution, history, or theory? We argue that a decision outlawing affirmative action is faithful to only one document: the original Constitution that did not survive the Civil War. In its place, a new Constitution arose—one transformed by three new Amendments and infused with an antiracist and abolitionist spirit. When it comes to America's inability to reckon with race/ism’s grip on our past and present, one might say the problem is the Court, not the Constitution.

    #RaceClass Reqs: The AntiRacist Constitution (Brandon Hasbrouck)

Special Guest

  • 08.26.22

    This month on #RaceClass, we asked: How does race matter before admissions?

    To explore that question, UNC historian Dr. William Sturkey joins us to unpack UNC-Chapel Hill’s legacy of racial exclusion and anti-Black racism. Dr. Sturkey details UNC’s ongoing inability to reckon with this history. UNC presents itself as the nation’s oldest “public” university. But for roughly 70% of its existence, the university formally excluded students of color and espoused overtly white supremacist attitudes.

    Even today, as UNC defends affirmative action before the Supreme Court, the university continues to “sanitize” its past, neo-confederates march on its campus, and the names of self-identified white supremacists adorn some of its buildings.

  • 08.15.22

    This month on #RaceClass, we’re asking: How does race matter before admissions? To start answer this question, we’re examining UNC-Chapel Hill’s history of racial exclusion.

    UNC is defending its right to consider applicant race before the Supreme Court. To understand why affirmative action remains a legal necessity and moral imperative at UNC, we explore UNC’s legacy of racial exclusion. UNC is our nation’s oldest "public" university. But from its founding in 1789 through 1955, UNC formally excluded Black students from its undergraduate campus. This policy reflected openly white supremacist attitudes at the highest echelons of UNC’s leadership.

    For the next twenty five years, UNC actively resisted federal pressure and court orders to desegregate. Part of that dispute ended in 1981, when the Reagan administration brokered a backroom deal with UNC’s institutional leadership—a negotiation that excluded the NAACP and other stakeholders that had fought for integration at UNC. So from 1789 through 1981, UNC either formally barred Black students or resisted integration. Recent events, including the mistreatment of Nikole Hannah-Jones, the defunding of civil rights centers, and a backroom deal with the Sons of Confederate Veterans, suggest UNC has yet to overcome this legacy of racial exclusion.

Special Guest

  • 07.30.22

    The Supreme Court is poised to ban affirmative action in college admissions. So we asked the question: Do "colorblind" admissions = race-neutral admissions? In a society where race/ism pervades so many aspects of our private and public lives, the unavoidable answer is no.

    To unpack this insight, Prof. Jerry Kang joins us to explore how affirmative action provides a more "fair measure" of student "merit." Prof. Kang explains that most measures of student achievement (e.g., letters of recommendation, grades, test scores) tend to under-state the existing talent and potential of students from negatively stereotyped groups.

    Affirmative action, in turn, counters the corresponding race-based boost white applicants would otherwise enjoy. So by seeing and accounting for race, we attain a more individualized, equitable and "meritocratic" admissions process.

Special Guest

  • 07.27.22

    ​Last episode, we explored how race matters after university admissions. Affirmative action advocates often highlight diversity’s “speech” function—that is, how more diversity promotes richer conversations in the classroom. That’s true, but it understates the case for diversity.

    Accordingly, we shifted the focus to diversity’s “equality” function—that is, how racial diversity safeguards each student’s right to enjoy the benefits of university membership. In essence, when white students are over-represented on a college campus, that demographic reality—coupled with pervasive presumptions about who “belongs” on elite college campuses—can create a “racial preference” for white students. One might say that affirmative action, by buffering against that dynamic, promotes racial equality on campus.

    In this follow-up episode, rockstar social psychologist Dr. Evelyn Carter helps us dive deeper into the science of diversity and equality. She explains the phenomenon of stereotype threat, exposes how institutional environments matter, and helps us see the intersectional identities we often overlook.

  • 07.27.22

    The Supreme Court is poised to ban affirmative action in college admissions. So we asked the question: Do colorblind admissions = racially neutral admissions? In a society where race/ism pervades so many aspects of our private and public lives, the unavoidable answer is: No.

    To unpack this insight, we explore how numerous colorblind considerations in Harvard's admissions process function as a race/class bonus for wealthy white applicants. Legacy preferences form a part of this story, but that's just the beginning.

  • 06.30.22

    #RaceClass is launching a 6-part series on affirmative action. But we’re taking an unconventional turn. Rather than focus on affirmative action itself, we’re exploring how *race matters* before affirmative action arrives. Specifically, we’ll ask how race matters before, during, and after university admissions. Why? Because we can’t know affirmative action until we know the backdrop it intervenes against.

    To kick things off, we explore how racial diversity serves a key equality function. Specifically, racial diversity safeguards each student’s right to enjoy the benefits of university membership. Put differently, when white students are over-represented on a college campus, that demographic reality – coupled with pervasive presumptions about who “belongs” – creates a “racial preference” for white students. One might say affirmative action, by buffering against that over-representation, promotes racial equality on campus.

    Next episode, Dr. Evelyn Carter joins us to dive deeper into the science of diversity and equality. Join us!

  • 05.27.22

    Race is a “social construct.” This means that humans created (a) racial categories, (b) the meanings we associate with those categories, and (c) the gatekeeping rules that determine who goes into which category.

    In #RaceClass Ep. 5, we explore the gatekeeping rules. Specifically, we ask why political elites in antebellum America adopted different gatekeeping rules for the category “Black” and the category “Indian.” Turns out, it’s all about property. And, as always, context matters.

    We also remember Philando Castile – whose 2016 killing exposed that there are two Second Amendments in the United States. And race has long informed which Second Amendment a person can enjoy.

  • 04.27.22

    Race is a social construct. This means humans created race. But why?

    In #RaceClass Ep. 4, we outline how economic and political elites have long employed race/ism as a potent political tool to:

    (1) DIVIDE (multiracial coalitions);

    (2) DISTRACT (us from the systems that produce our shared precarity) and

    (3) DEFEND (an America defined by enduring inequality).

    With references to Heather Mcghee & Ian Haney-Lopez, and shout outs to Kathryn Joyce & Jennifer Berkshire. PLUS a mini-lesson on the “social construction” of race. What else is a social construct? Hammers, international boundaries, and money

  • 03.27.22

    We know that race matters. But it can be hard to pinpoint precisely *how* race matters.

    In episode 3, we discuss 5 ways that race shapes life in America—even if we wish it didn’t. We’ll cover how race shapes:

    (1) access to resources;

    (2) others expectations of us;

    (3) different treatment people receive;

    (4) our perspectives; and

    (5) the conditions we must navigate as we move through life.

    This list is far from exhaustive. Still, it expands our vocabulary and helps us explain what we might mean when we say “race matters.”

  • 02.22.22

    In our second episode, we discuss competing definitions of “racism” and why the fight to define racism matters shapes our ability to fight racism.

  • 01.22.22

    #RaceClass Ep. 1 | The Pilot

    What's race got to do with it?