You are driving to work like any other day, except that you unexpectedly woke up completely colorblind. As you approach a busy intersection, you see a green light turning to yellow so you accelerate a little to beat the light. In reality, the light was yellow and turned to red, but because you are colorblind, you couldn’t distinguish between these symbols that could mean the difference between life and death.
Despite the fact that total color blindness disqualifies individuals from operating a motor vehicle, in our political climate, the term has become a shorthand to describe positively the absence of discrimination of people based on color and associated ethno-cultural traits. Bafflingly, colorblindness, a disabling condition, is now commonly used to signify a supposed meritocracy in which diversity, equity, and inclusion policies do not exist. In the immediate aftermath of an aviation accident involving a US Army Blackhawk and a regional jet, President Trump claimed that diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives at the Federal Aviation Administration supporting disabled people and minorities were to blame for the tragedy. It is “common sense,” Trump said, that disabled people and minorities are by nature the least qualified to hold influential positions.
Efforts by activists to purge “diversity, equity, and inclusion” from all educational venues rely heavily on color blindness as a policy term in their consequential legal filings. In early 2025, a group calling itself Students Against Racial Discrimination filed a lawsuit against the University of California seeking to force it to conduct admissions “in a color–blind manner” in order to “eliminate the corrupt and unlawful race and sex preferences that subordinate academic merit to so-called diversity considerations,” supposed “preferences” that have been statutorily prohibited in California since 1996. This comes as just another instance of opponents of race-conscious admissions and critical race studies curricula in higher education equating colorblindness with policies that promote equality. In what he calls the “Counterrevolution Blueprint,” the anti-D.E.I. activist Christopher Rufo wrote: “Trump can end these programs under his executive authority and replace D.E.I. with a policy of strict colorblind equality. This action would deliver an immediate shock to the bureaucracy.” Indeed, President Trump’s administration has wasted no time in implementing such “colorblind” policies, from shuttering federal D.E.I. initiatives that help recruit talented Americans from the broadest cross section of experience to removing the disaggregation of data in public health research that seeks to understand how policies might affect people in some communities differently than in others.
The irony that a term of disability is used to exclude disabled people from government jobs or higher education is not lost on me. I was born with a very rare retinal condition called achromatopsia. Due to an inherited genetic mutation, the cone cells in my retina did not develop, so I am left with the sight received through the rod cells, resulting in an inability to see in sunlight, greatly reduced distance vision, and a complete inability to see or distinguish colors, except for black, white, and shades of grey. Why is it, then, that journalistic reporting and policy statements are based on a false analogy to a disabling condition, one that makes it more difficult to see nuance? Take it from me, calling for an end to diversity, equity, and inclusion in favor of a “colorblind” approach based on merit is not only shortsighted (see what I did there?) but also nonsensical.
For me, to navigate the world safely and productively, I need to discern more, not less, about a person, place, or institution to understand best its merits. I use all of my senses and intellect to gather as much information about how the world works. If I cannot grasp some detail, I use assistive devices to help me view what I would otherwise miss.
When you are one of the few people uniquely qualified actually to know what colorblindness is, the notion of a “colorblind” approach to learning about and including people to form a more productive society is laughably ridiculous and often dangerous. In the classroom, I cannot distinguish between students based solely on their appearance. For students to participate in discussion and exchange ideas with their peers, their presence and potential for contribution has to be recognized. As such, I memorize their names and voices, which I then connect to facts I have learned about them through an introductory survey. Knowing more about someone, especially what makes them unique, allows me to see and recognize their contributions and potential growth as individuals within a broader community. I learn to see the nuances of individuals despite my colorblindness and low vision, not to shift standards and expectations in my demanding courses on Shakespeare and Milton, but to create opportunities for all to achieve at the highest level of excellence that I expect from each of them.
Ultimately we might reconsider whether we want to live in a colorblind world, either in its literal or misappropriated figurative sense, one where you could never really discern the brilliant and unique flecks of color in your child’s eyes, one where your child’s individual potential would be discarded out of hand if for whatever reason they exhibit qualities that “common sense” names inadequate.
If our society and government are truly intent on creating opportunities for all and elevating individual merit, then we need to stop pretending that the disabling symptoms of colorblindness, either metaphorically or literally, are the way to promote success. On the contrary, we need to see more of people, discern more, and find more ways of looking at distinction. Otherwise, we should just call politicians’ invocation of colorblindness, especially when it comes to the higher education policy arena, for what it is: meritless.
