If one were really trying to make a decision about whether to agree or disagree with a general social conclusion, two personal experiences of uncertain meaning would not be a good ground for our decision. We would want more certain information on which to decide. But in truth neither your nor I is depending on your personal experience for this conclusion. We think it's implicit in our historical situation, and is not subject to reinterpretation by people who think their uncertain personal experiences indicate the possibility of living in the US without awareness of "color."

But even this, when you finish saying it, is just "perhaps." And what we do know is that European-descended "white people" will not be the majority in the US in two decades or so, which will not decrease the awareness of "race," but will change it quite drastically.

The problem here, at least as I see it, is that you're reaching a conclusion readers will either already have reached or discarded, for reasons other than the ones you advance. Nothing about your statement is designed, let alone likely, to be convincing to someone who disagrees.

In particular, to say that skin color is "visible" suggests that it is somehow "real," there to be seen, requiring no interpretation. What your personal experiences suggest is the opposite: that skin color is "not there," but is created by our interpretation of what we "see." Historical and other recorded experience supports this view. Irish people were "black" in the 18th century, while, as you've read in the course, Jews were "colored" people until the Second World War, after which—largely because half of them had been murdered—they became "white."

So the question you start with, "can we stop discriminating when skin color is visible" might reduce operationally to Thurgood Marshall's position, that race will no longer be a problem when we have to look at our own skin to tell what "color" we are. What we live with, in fact, isn't a reality people can "see" about us, but an interpretation of who we are that others make us live with. That this amounts to "discrimination," which can also work in "reverse," is a misstatement of the situation. Racism isn't about "discrimination" on the basis of something that can be seen: it's about imposing an interpretation that can't be seen, but can be felt.

When society subconsciously classifies citizens by race, is the plurality opinion in Parents Involved in Community accurate when the court argues that one day, to get rid of discrimination on the basis of race society needs to stop discriminating on the basis of race? I am trying to make sense of this. Perhaps not classifying people on the basis of race is just one step in eliminating prejudices, if ever at all. But also, maybe it is especially important to stop classifying by race in a society where the number of people who have parents of different races are rising, and the lines between race are blurred.

Yet, I still have a hard time believing that we can change our attitudes about race. And I have an even harder time believing that by denying the fact that races are classified by society will help solve the problem of racial inequality and poverty.

Skin color is visible, and the color of one’s skin affects many facets of life such as: lengths of prison sentences, the likelihood of death sentences, what is perceived as attractive, chances of being nominated into a political position, and the likelihood of being negatively stereotyped. http://scholar.harvard.edu/jlhochschild/publications/policies-racial-classification-and-politics-racial-inequality.

Take my own experiences as a biracial person, for example. When I was in college, I received a citation for using a fake ID trying to get into a bar, and I also received a citation for buying a minor alcohol. When I received a citation for using a fake ID, the police officer was demeaning, unforgiving, and rude. Usually (according to my white friends’ experiences), when they were caught using a fake ID, they received a slap on the wrist and did not get a citation. However, I received a citation. Years later, when I looked at my record, the officer had written me down as “B” under race, standing for “black.” On the other hand, when a police officer caught me buying my friend alcohol who was a minor, the police officer was understanding and forgiving, even though supplying a minor with alcohol is a more serious offense. When I looked at my record years later, the officer had categorized me as “C” under race, standing for “Caucasian.”

Now, there is a chance that the difference in how each police officer treated me had nothing to do with race. However, it is impossible to ignore the coincidence, especially in central Pennsylvania. Regardless, I do not think that because the police officers in these different occasions were forced to categorize me according to my race on the police report that it exacerbated (or even caused) their biases (assuming they were). Each police officer made his own determination of my race and treated me accordingly. In my opinion, this is why it is difficult to say that to stop discrimination on the basis of race, we need to stop discriminating on the basis of race. Because race is visible, people automatically and subconsciously classify citizens by race before they are even required on paper to do so.

However, as a biracial person, I do agree that classification based on race can sometimes be hurtful. “[A]dvocacy groups argue that multiracial individuals are being treated unequally because of their lack of official recognition . . . and their desire to retain multiple identities rather than follow the one-drop rule.” http://scholar.harvard.edu/jlhochschild/publications/policies-racial-classification-and-politics-racial-inequality. For example, most people always ask me with which group I identify. I am not sure why. Does it make them feel more comfortable to know whether I am black or white? Moreover, black people have told me that I am not “black,” and white people have told I that I am not “white.” Hence, I do not “belong” in either group. But why must I be one or the other when I am both?

An advocate for mixed people created a “Bill of Rights for Racially Mixed People,” she wrote (among twelve elements): “I have the right…not to keep the races separate within me…not to be responsible for people’s discomfort with my physical ambiguity… …to identify myself differently than strangers expect me to identify…to identify with more than one group of people.” http://www.washington.edu/alumni/columns/dec96/blurring5.html.

As the number of biracial offspring increases rapidly, and the line between races blurs, perhaps the plurality opinion in Parents Involved in Community has some merit. If we continue to try to classify biracial people as black, white, Asian, Hispanic, etc., a racial divide will always exist, and biases will persist. But if we stop trying to racially classify biracial people, perhaps society will start to perceive them as who they are instead of what race they are.

Nevertheless, the majority of society is not biracial. Consequently, it is harder for people to resist racial classification when skin color is so conspicuous. But again, even with biracial people, racial classification is inevitable. For example, Halle Berry, Tiger Woods, and Barrack Obama, are all biracial, yet you would never hear someone call anyone of them “white.” So, is it possible to avoid racial classification? How can we get rid of discrimination on the basis of race by not discriminating on the basis of race when skin color is visible?

• #Set ALLOWTOPICVIEW = TWikiAdminGroup, AlexandriaSchumacher
• #Set DENYTOPICVIEW = TWikiGuest

Note: TWiki has strict formatting rules for preference declarations. Make sure you preserve the three spaces, asterisk, and extra space at the beginning of these lines. If you wish to give access to any other users simply add them to the comma separated ALLOWTOPICVIEW list.