Racism is not a partisan “weapon” but a structural hierarchy rooted in white supremacy, designed to privilege whiteness through laws, institutions, and norms. Professional bodies define racism as a system of advantage sustained by policies and practices that disproportionately benefit white populations while disadvantaging Black, Indigenous, and other people of color (American Psychological Association, 2021). This framing predates modern party politics: the United States was built on enslavement, settler colonialism, and legalized segregation that organized society around racial hierarchy. The question, then, is whether contemporary policy choices dismantle or reinforce that hierarchy—not whether one party “uses” racism (American Psychological Association, 2021; Feagin, 2014).
To understand how deeply embedded this hierarchy is, we must look at its legal foundations. White supremacy establishes whites as a ruling class by normalizing white culture as the default and embedding racial hierarchy in law, property, and opportunity. Long before the 1790 Naturalization Act, colonial legislatures had already codified racial distinctions into law. A. Leon Higginbotham’s In the Matter of Color (1978) documents how 17th‑ and 18th‑century statutes in colonies such as Virginia and Maryland defined slavery as a hereditary condition tied to African descent, restricted interracial marriage, and imposed penalties on free Black people that did not apply to whites. These colonial codes institutionalized racial hierarchy at the local level, laying the foundation for systemic white supremacy that federal law later nationalized. From these early statutes through Jim Crow, racial status determined who could own land, vote, and accumulate wealth, structuring generations of advantage and disadvantage (Higginbotham, 1978; Feagin, 2014). Civil rights gains of the mid‑20th century were corrective measures designed to constrain that hierarchy; weakening them reopens pathways to stratification that place people of color into servant roles while preserving white dominance (Feagin, 2014; American Psychological Association, 2021).
This history also exposes why claims of “colorblind” fairness are misleading. Assertions that success depends only on “meeting the standard” ignore evidence that standards themselves are filtered through bias. A landmark field experiment found resumes with Black‑identifying names received fewer callbacks than identical resumes with white‑identifying names—demonstrating that merit signals are not assessed neutrally (Bertrand & Mullainathan, 2004). The study also showed that increased qualifications did less to improve outcomes for Black‑identified applicants, revealing a penalty attached to racialized identity rather than competence. In other words, colorblindness can legitimize biased gatekeeping, while DEI and civil rights enforcement make merit legible by clarifying criteria, expanding access, and checking discriminatory filters (Bertrand & Mullainathan, 2004; Bonilla‑Silva, 2014).
The consequences of ignoring these systemic filters are visible in current policy debates. Efforts to abolish diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI), narrow disparate‑impact enforcement, or rescind equity directives weaken the mechanisms that counteract racial hierarchy. Analysts warn that such rollbacks move the nation back toward pre‑civil rights norms by eroding protections, oversight, and accountability—conditions under which racial hierarchy organizes labor and status, effectively positioning people of color as a servant class while maintaining whites as a ruling class (Berry, 2025; Center for American Progress, 2024). Empirical evidence also shows that affirmative action and compliance tools expanded opportunity for women—especially white women—demonstrating these policies do not privilege one race but broaden fair access across groups (Leonard, 1990; Kurtulus, 2013). Removing them narrows pathways and entrenches hierarchy.
Recognizing this pattern clarifies what genuine fairness requires. It is not enough to claim neutrality; fairness demands clear standards and active safeguards that ensure those standards are applied without bias. That includes transparent criteria, validated selection tools, accountability for disparate outcomes, and proactive inclusion strategies that counter systemic filters rather than pretending they do not exist (American Psychological Association, 2021). This is not partisan—it is the minimum required to dismantle a hierarchy that otherwise reproduces advantage. Without such safeguards, “neutral” policies re‑create racialized stratification, and the rhetoric of colorblindness becomes a cover for returning to a servant/ruling class order (Bonilla‑Silva, 2014; Berry, 2025).
Taken together, the evidence shows that racism is a manifestation of white supremacy—a structural hierarchy of whiteness—not a tactic of Democrats or Republicans. Recent rollbacks that weaken civil rights and DEI tools reinforce that hierarchy, risking a return to pre‑civil rights conditions that organize society into ruling and servant classes by race (American Psychological Association, 2021; Berry, 2025; Center for American Progress, 2024).
References
American Psychological Association. (2021). APA resolution on racism. https://www.apa.org/about/policy/resolution-racism
Bertrand, M., & Mullainathan, S. (2004). Are Emily and Greg more employable than Lakisha and Jamal? A field experiment on labor market discrimination. American Economic Review, 94(4), 991–1013. https://doi.org/10.1257/0002828042002561
Berry, M. (2025, January 15). Civil rights at risk: The rollback of DEI initiatives. The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights.
Bonilla‑Silva, E. (2014). Racism without racists: Color‑blind racism and the persistence of racial inequality in America (4th ed.). Rowman & Littlefield.
Center for American Progress. (2024, December 10). The attack on diversity, equity, and inclusion programs. https://www.americanprogress.org
Feagin, J. R. (2014). Racist America: Roots, current realities, and future reparations (3rd ed.). Routledge.
Higginbotham, A. L. (1978). In the matter of color: Race and the American legal process, the colonial period. Oxford University Press.
Kurtulus, F. A. (2013). Affirmative action and the utilization of minorities and women: A longitudinal analysis 1973–2003. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 32(3), 462–488. https://doi.org/10.1002/pam.21698
Leonard, J. S. (1990). The impact of affirmative action on employment. Journal of Labor Economics, 8(2), S263–S276. https://doi.org/10.1086/298225
Social Work Policy Practice 