The chasm between the principles upon which this Government was founded…and those which are daily practices under the protection of the flag, yawns so wide and deep.
—Mary Church Terrell, clubwoman, businesswoman, and activist, 1906
As an African American woman, living at the intersection of race and gender inequity can often be a precarious position for me. While everyone lives with multifaceted selves, ours can be the subject of contradictory expectations. We are not permitted the luxury of the softness associated with femininity, there exists this expectation of power and resilience. We are not honored with the perception of the strength of our blackness, there exists the expectation of timidity and submission. We are among the most educated people and yet the worst paid, not promoted, not promised, and not allowed to stray from perfection. We are expected to live at the crossroads of power and resilience, timidity, and submissiveness all while defying both sides of what is assumed to be our nature, bringing both a level of tenderness and strength that allows us to endure the weight of the world. And so we do, we always have, and we always will. It is the very duality of these expectations that gives us the capacity to endure, knowing that “no” is not an option.
Despite “no,” we must discover a means of making things happen. As Vice President Kamala Harris says, “(We) eat ‘no’ for breakfast.”
I started to see how these expectations were manifesting for my daughter and was thinking about how I wanted her to experience life. We all want the best for our children. Should she, like me, be building as flawless a resume as possible, to reach her illusive dream? Or should she instead temper these expectations with living a life that brings her fulfillment. These questions came to me as she called me from a car accident in the middle of a roundabout in Manchester, England. These were my thoughts as she rushed to get to work for her presentation, despite the accident, despite the injury, and despite the shock. Despite the accident she went to work. I am grateful to the kind soul, probably somebody’s mother, who told my daughter that she could in fact take care of herself. This woman cancelled the presentation so that the company she worked for wouldn’t fault my daughter for that act of self-care. The pressure this 22-year-old faced working in another country, alone, afraid to disappoint a system that held her to unreasonable expectations, where a mere stranger had to say “no” on her behalf. It was exhausting.
Recently, I attended a presentation on colorblindness by Dr. Antoinette E. Kavanaugh at a training given by the Gault Center. Dr. Kavanaugh took attendees through diverse reports and experiments speaking about how to assess these varied scenarios with a colorconscious lens. Her presentation opened my perspective to the idea that a critical analysis is needed in the legal community, which results in a focus on the reasoning behind precedent, how that reasoning is at its foundation rooted in bias. As lawyers, have the tools, skills, and ethical obligation to make the reality of bias as an underpinning in our laws manifest for those who don’t share in our area of expertise because it is the fundamental problem upon which our society is built.
This clarity of understanding, which crystalized for me as a result of my feelings for my daughter and examining the impact of bias more critically, helped me not only to understand the profound responsibility of the legal community to mend the fabric of our democracy but also provided me with a tool to help our legal community, which stands at the precipice of all foundational change in America, make this change through an evolved understanding of the legal precedent that guides our actions. I view this as my duty as an American and my ethical responsibility as a legal professional to my daughter, to all who live with and don’t seek to understand the impact of bias, and to the future of America.
The idea of color consciousness and my struggle with expectations related to my individual intersectionality doesn’t inhibit my perception of my own barriers to equity, inherent in who I am and how I came to exist in this society. Not being a sociologist, I didn’t know if I would have the words to detail both the problem and the solutions as I saw them. Then I had the privilege of participating in a race training given by an organization that works in restorative spaces. This organization is full of thoughtful, wellmeaning, diverse people. The assignment was to work on “The Race Card Project.” In this activity you write six words to explore your thoughts on race and identity. Diligently, all participants wrote and shared their thoughts, and I started to notice a pattern. I used the activity in the next few trainings I conducted and noticed that the pattern continued. Finally, I went to the Race Card website to see if the pattern would continue among the thousands of people who participated in the project. Here is what I noticed.
At the initial training, a Black man indicated that his six words about race were “The Fight I Never Asked For.” His words not only illuminated my toil as one with marginalized identities, but they elucidated for me an improved understanding of how my own bias impacts me in the aspects of my identity, where I am not marginalized. There was a distance between how I focused on identity when addressing concerns related to my own marginalization (race and gender) and how I focus on all of the other parts of my multifaceted self that I have the privilege not to fight about (sexual orientation, religion, immigration status, etc.). It is a concrete distance rooted in the emotional labor associated with living an experience versus a cognitive understanding of that lived experience. While at an intellectual level I can understand that each part of my identity exists, I don’t have to be fully present in understanding how each of those parts of my identity that are not laborious for me engages with the world, which enables me to only view that portion of my identity as it relates to someone else’s fight.
This distance that exists between the part of one’s identity that isn’t marginalized and the part that is goes to the core of the issue. When we don’t experience bias in a particular part of our life, it is harder for us, at an essential level, to appreciate and value the perspectives of others who are experiencing that bias directly. Yes, we can intellectually understand and appreciate bias, we can say all of the right words, but we cannot sit in another’s experience and, as Brene Brown would describe empathy, “feel with them.” The pattern I saw was that people who didn’t experience a fight associated with race at a core level don’t see themselves as a race and consequently described their feelings of race as it related to the struggle of others. Their description of race was the connection they experienced between their actual feelings as they related how someone else, someone living with the challenges of race bias, was feeling.
What makes Black women feel that they are not permitted the luxury of failure? Why are they held to a degree of perfection that doesn’t exist for others? Why couldn’t my daughter just leave the accident, call her boss, and take care of herself in that moment? This phenomenon is not specific to Black women. It is infused in our culture against all who are marginalized, be it by race, religion, gender identity, disability, immigrant status, sexual orientation, or anything else. Consider the Wheel of Power created by Sylvia
Duckworth to illustrate how power, privilege, and social identities intersect. Sylvia Duckworth, Wheel of Power, Privilege, and Marginalization (cited in Anna-Leena Riitaoja et al., Migrants at the University Doorstep: How We Unfairly Deny Access and What We Could
(Should) Do Now, 16 Apples—J. Applied Language Stud. 121 (2022)). The closer you are to the center of power, the less you have to consider how that part of your identity engages with the world.
When we have the privilege of not thinking about any particular part of our multifaceted identity because its closer to the center of power and we don’t experience bias in that part of our identity, we are less connected to the labor of the marginalized experience concerning that portion of identity. We don’t know how to relate to the toils connected to another’s experience, although we might try. It is why the tragic deaths of George Floyd, Ahmaud Arbery, Sonya Masey, and countless others continue to occur. It’s not just the act of one individual that makes these tragedies possible. It’s that we have created a system that, at its foundation, only values one perspective: the perspective of the majority. It’s a fluid concept, so it doesn’t matter what that majority is. Able-bodied, cisgendered, Christian, whatever it is, it is the one valued. It’s about you looking at the wheel of power and asking yourself, what do I have the privilege not to consider. Our system, especially our legal system, doesn’t understand the toils or value the perspective and experience of people of color, and that’s why these tragedies continue to occur. Bias is not a matter of character—it is about cognition and when we stop working at understanding identity and perspective cognitively, bias wins. I am cataloging these ideas in an effort to debunk the myths about DEI and help us stay on the path of addressing bias in our legal system to provide an improved ability to value the labor and perspectives that aren’t our own.
The five myths of diversity, equity, and inclusion that we will debunk are:
The Myth of Meritocracy
The Myth of a Post Racial America
The Myth of Colorblindness
The Myth that DEI is a Bad Word
The Myth of DEI Fatigue
Myth 1: The Myth of Meritocracy
Alexandr Wang coined the anti-DEI terminology Merit Excellence and Intelligence (MEI), pitting merit excellence and intelligence against diversity equity and inclusion, in an internal blog he wrote for his company Scale. His blog reads that he hires, “only the best person” by demanding excellence and unapologetically preferring very smart people. His statements imply that the search for merit, excellence, and intelligence precludes the value of the knowledge capacity and perspective that arise through diverse experiences. It intimates that considering diversity, equity, and inclusion has little merit, eliminating the possibility that individual perspectives rooted in diversity are valuable. According to his blog, “(a) hiring process based on merit will naturallyyield a variety of backgrounds, perspectives, and ideas.” Alexandr Wang, Meritocracy at Scale, Scale (June 13, 2024). This “natural yielding” distorts the truth. As with most decision-making points in our criminal legal system, studies have shown that bias also exists at most decision-making points in the hiring process. Two reasons to consider about why the hiring process doesn’t “naturally” yield diversity are cognitive reflection and pedigree bias.
Cognitive reflection is a term that measures our ability to override our intuitive decisions about who is the “right fit” for our organization. Studies show that when we use intuition instead of deliberative thinking, it highlights how bias shows up in our cognition and how we often jump to the wrong conclusions. Consider taking a cognitive reflection test to examine your own initial reaction. Three ways you can improve your cognitive reflection capacity and mitigate against biases of thinking are:
Acknowledge that you will always have an initial “gut” reaction to an event or problem and jump to solution mode. This is unavoidable, and it is okay. Note your initial reaction and solution.
Pause and check your first idea before sharing your feedback. Check who the decision would impact and how much effort the solution would require.
Ask questions to find out who really has the problem and where the problem comes from. Check again whether your first idea would answer these questions.
Cognitive Reflection Test—Examples of Reacting vs Checking, Howie Mann (Dec. 2, 2022).
Pedigree bias is the bias that reflects the fact that when faced with a stack of resumes, most hiring managers instinctively gravitate towards candidates with impressive pedigrees—those who have worked at well-known, reputable organizations, often filled with graduates from prestigious universities. This pedigree bias presents a significant issue in the hiring process, as it unfairly advantages certain candidates while excluding others who may be equally or even more qualified, often those from different socioeconomic backgrounds. It misses the fact that meritorious, excellent, intelligent people cannot all afford to attend the most elite institutions or may have other considerations in their lives that inhibit their ability to get the most elite grades.
Yale law professor Daniel Markovits discusses this pedigree focus in his book, The
Meritocracy Trap (2019). While the concept of meritocracy might seem appealing,
Markovits argues that it is “a pretense, constructed to rationalize an unjust distribution of advantage.” He points out that elite organizations tend to hire graduates from elite schools, which, in turn, draw their students primarily from elite prep schools and wealthier families.
In a typical hiring process, the resume often serves as a gatekeeper, narrowing the candidate pool and limiting diversity. Based upon our intuition, we all carry mental images of what a “good” resume should look like and who is a “good fit.” This predisposition leads us to reject superior candidates who don’t fit that mold. In this way, our own experiences, our own cognition can become a barrier to recognizing and embracing diverse talent. Varied perspectives and experiences provide a mosaic of knowledge. Research shows that education, grade point average (GPA), and employer pedigree are very poor predictors of success on the job. The key to hiring success is to value that knowledge and think more broadly about the different paths people take, and value that. When you reduce the preferential treatment of pedigree, you improve your chances of recruiting talented people who can help you adapt and thrive. How to Select Resumes Without Perpetuating Bias, Staffing Advisors (June 23, 2020), https://tinyurl.com/yyv5cp9f.
Myth 2: The Myth of a Post Racial America
This myth is the belief that we don’t need DEI any longer because we live in a post racial America. Living in a post racial America means that race no longer has an impact on our society. Nothing could be further from the truth. As studies and indicators quantify, the disparities that exist for people of color in our country are tragic. It really doesn’t matter what field we are discussing—wealth, health, education, employment, or our criminal legal field—all indicators show that people of color are worse off. “By the year 2000, Black people made up almost half of the state prison population but only about 13% of the U.S. population. And although a wave of changes to sentencing and corrections policies over the past two decades has helped lessen disparities in federal and state prisons, Black adults still were imprisoned in 2020 at five times the rate for White adults.” Pew Charitable Trs., Racial Disparities Persit in Many U.S. Jails (May 16, 2023).
Why is this? Why is it that the progress of the few: President Obama, General Colin Powell,
Poet Laurette Amanda Gorman, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, legal scholar Charles Ogletree, entrepreneur Oprah Winfrey—doesn’t translate to the end of racism for all people of color in America. The answer lies in the dominant narrative that seeps into our systems and our minds, causing inequity even among those who seek to be fair and just.
The dominant narrative is a belief that serves the interests of a dominant social group. It is an ideology about the dominant social group that takes hold as a result of being often repeated, told by people with authority, and silencing other perspectives. Dominant narratives can be normalized through repetition and authority, making them seem objective and apolitical. These narratives can be influenced by cultural, social, and political factors and can represent the majority’s perspective. They also can limit understanding and perpetuate stereotypes.
The dominant belief associated with living in a post racial America is that racism no longer impacts our society, especially given the success of many people of color; therefore, any Black person who is not successful is not successful due to their own inability and capacity. However, the success of the few in their fight against the tyranny of oppression does not purport that the oppression has been successfully thwarted for all. Consider, as an example, the inequities in our education system in light of the research underlying these inequities. Research shows that compared with white students, Black students are more likely to be suspended or expelled, less likely to be placed in gifted programs, and subject to lower expectations from their teachers. Kirsten Weir, Inequality at School: What’s Behind the Racial Disparity in Our Education System?, 47 Monitor on Psych., no. 10, Nov. 2016, at 42.
Why are Black students more likely to be suspended? A Yale Child Study Center experiment led by Walter Gilliam showed that Black students are more closely monitored for behavior problems starting at or before preschool. In his study, teachers were told to look for problematic behaviors in children. While there were no actual problematic behaviors occurring during the experiment, eye tracing technology showed that both Black and white teachers paid more attention to the behavior of the Black children in the study and 42 percent of those teachers reported misbehavior for the Black boys. This study demonstrated the expectation of teachers with respect to behavior problems for Black children causing teachers to both monitor children of color more closely and, based upon that increased scrutiny, document more behavioral problems among them. Gaby Galvin, Even Preschoolers Face Racial Bias, Study Finds, U.S. News (Sept. 28, 2016).
Why are Black students less likely to be placed in gifted programs? In an experiment conducted by Robert Rosenthal, he studied the phenomenon of expectation theory. This is the theory that expectations can create a self-fulfilling prophecy given the subtle cues and unintentional biases that occur from evaluators. In his experiment, teachers were informed that the students had taken an IQ test that measured their capacity to excel.
Some students were marked as indicated to excel, while others were marked as ordinary.
These tests had never occurred. Instead, students were given these monikers randomly. Those students marked as indicated to excel received more support and more opportunity, and ultimately excelled. This study demonstrates that when educators believe in the capacity of a student, the educator will subconsciously behave in ways that facilitate and inspire success. Robert Rosenthal & Lenore Jacobson, Pygmalion in the Classroom, 3 Urb. Rev. 16 (1968).
While I am sure that there are many Black students in gifted programs who have never been suspended, I myself am one, that reality cannot discount the destructive toll that the expectations for children of color often grounded in failure and inability, has. These are the realities that exist in our country, making the dominant narrative of, ‘if you just work hard you can succeed,’ more intangible. The reality discounts the implicit bias and structural barriers that thwart success even when you work as hard as possible. It is the consistent message being sent to stay in your place. This is where we begin the work to look at the bias underlying the logic of that dominant narrative in our systems. How are these ideologies reflected in the processing of our cases before judges and juries? How can we begin to move beyond this inequity when we refuse to admit to its existence? If we could just evolve our perspective to consider alternative narratives and work as leaders of justice in this society to move beyond the dominant narrative, maybe one day we can get to a better, more race conscious America. This is what I refer to as place consciousness. Being place conscious is first about realizing that your perspective is limited and then appreciating someone else’s perspective. When you allow the dominant narrative to prevent you from exploring other possibilities, you are unconscious about the experience of another and how that experience may influence the outcome that you are seeing. It goes back to our multifaceted self and our incapacity to “feel with” another in addressing a type of marginalization that we don’t have or experience. A place conscious perspective considers the barriers to the dominant narrative and works to address the barriers in perception that elevate this dominant belief. It’s a compassionate perspective that allows and even compels those creating the dominant narrative, and those living with privilege, to take a second look.
Myth 3: The Myth of Colorblindness
I attended a training where a prosecutor said to a defense attorney that the one thing we cannot consider in our cases is race. This sentiment from a person of color in a discussion that focused on how implicit bias impacted the criminal legal system seemed limited. This statement summarily demonstrated the fundamental lack of understanding of the way in which implicit bias and colorblindness work. The attorney missed the reality that due to implicit bias, we are actually always considering race, even when we don’t recognize it as part of our analysis. The belief that you do not consider race demonstrates the insidious nature of colorblindness. We are, in fact, influenced by race and bias in every decision you make, and having a color-conscious ideology allows you to realize that race underlies your thoughts and the systems and policies that provide the foundation of our justice system and colors the perception by which we make our decisions. Color consciousness allows you to counteract the way in which you are considering race, allowing unconscious bias to give way to a more conscious regard of that consideration. Being color conscious is the only way to realize that because we see race regardless of our desire to do so, the recognition of that reality is what we are striving for so that one can address our underlying prejudice and the systemic barriers that lead our criminal legal system to produce inequitable results for people of color.
Colorblindness is the idea the ignoring or overlooking racial differences promotes racial harmony. Afi-Odelia E. Scruggs, Colorblindness: The New Racism? Learning for Just., no. 36, Fall 2009. Yet it is nearly impossible for a society whose laws, rules, and structures have been predicated on an ideology of racial inequity to ignore this truth for the fictitious utopia of a colorblind society. It is unrealistic and even harmful to disregard another’s race or to not see color in a society that is as racially stratified as the United States’. Thus, the adoption of colorblindness does not reduce racial prejudice and, moreover, people who endorse greater levels of colorblindness actually engage in racially insensitive behavior.
Evan P. Apfelbaum et al., Seeing Race and Seeming Racist? Evaluating Strategic
Colorblindness in Social Interaction, 95 J. Personality & Soc. Psych. 918 (2008). Rather than fall prey to the myth of colorblindness, we should instead be thinking about our identity in a more conscious way. Part of what prevents people from having the desire to be color conscious in their thoughtfulness is the misunderstanding of what the respect of another’s perspective says about your own. Recall a time when you purchased tickets to the theater or a concert. When you purchased your tickets, you had the benefit of being able to choose your seat, based on price. As you made your choice, a little cone would pop up telling you what your visual vantage point would be in the theater. How much of the stage could you see? You knew that if you chose a different seat, then you would get a different perspective of what you could see in the show.
If we thought of color consciousness as the seat that you have in a theater, you would understand that every single person in the theater has a different seat and a different perspective of the show. Some seats cost more and give you more access, while the cheaper seats give you a wider perspective but put you further from the action. When someone said, “you had a better seat,” you wouldn’t then be offended. You would look around the theater and understand that what you see is only one view, yet there are so many others. If we could just learn to value the fact that those other seats might be able to see something different in the show—they might have a different perspective because they have a different view—maybe we would be less threatened by having a culturally cohesive culture. Allowing us to notice someone in a different seat, be curious about what they can see from their vantage point, and respect another perspective leads to cultural cohesion. Cultural cohesion is the unifying principle among individuals within an organization through which the foundations of cultural diversity and cultural humility are effectively employed to elevate the engagement of diverse perspectives for the benefit of the whole. It is through the improved understanding and activation of this process that the benefits of diversity, equity, inclusion, and belonging principles transform people and institutions. Each seat represents our life experience, and while some may be closer to the stage, they lose the ability to see what’s happening in the dark behind them. We all bring our unique selves to the seat we occupy in the theater of life. Both the opening of your barriers and the understanding that allowing someone else in a different seat to share their perspective make the picture you see more complete. Recognizing the value of the seat we have been placed in doesn’t mean we can’t understand that what the person can see on the other side of the theater, while different, still has value. As a legal community, as a democracy, we could benefit from expanding our perspective by valuing and benefiting from the combined viewpoints of everyone in the theater. Colin Fraser Kingsmill, 5 Ways You Can Create Cultural Cohesion, LinkedIn (Aug. 7, 2023).
Myth 4: The Myth That DEI Is a Bad Word
Diversity, equity, and inclusion seems to be a term that garners a lot of attention and pushback. This occurs because the internal analysis that DEI inspires causes people to have uncomfortable conversations with themselves. As DEI practitioners, we ask you to question the way that you do things, the way that you behave, the vocabulary that you use, and even the way you think. It is an ask that you question who you are and how you show up in society which is actually an identity issue. The fear associated with questioning your identity and the fabric of our society can be intense.
Here I am asking that you consider that our founding fathers elevated equity only for those of us who were like them, white male landowners, and that itself is inequitable. I am asking you to consider the fact that the reasonable person standard, determined by a judiciary that largely has a monolithic experience, which likely compels a monolithic view is, in fact, unreasonable. I am asking you to consider the perspectives of every person and how they are influenced by the unconscious messages of implicit bias. I am asking you to consider how this cognition and fear impact the way we think, engage, and decide. These asks are threatening. Moreover, if we do not address these asks, the foundational principles of our country may be threatened. We must engage with DEI at a more fundamental level. DEI is grounded in the principles of fairness, justice, and equity. That is what we should be thinking in every question we are being asked. Is it fair? Is it fair that our founding fathers only wanted equality for people who were like them? Is it fair that the reasonable person standard is decided by judges who largely have one monolithic view? Is it fair that unconscious messages impact the way we engage and decide? If it isn’t fair, then what are we, as legal practitioners, doing to ensure fairness within the legal system that impacts everything? Fairness, justice, and equity are the very principles that we should be elevating as members of the legal community. If we hold to these underlying principles of DEI, we prevent the noise accompanying the use of charged undermining language, from getting in the way of the positive and beneficial outcomes that DEI seeks. People can’t argue with fairness.
Myth 5: The Myth of DEI Fatigue
In the immediate aftermath of the death of George Floyd, there were increased conversations around DEI topics and trainings. Since then, an increased fatigue for those concerns is evident. After the Supreme Court’s Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard decision (600 U.S. 181 (2023)), there has been pushback against DEI principles everywhere. Advancing DEI Initiative, Meltzer Ctr. for Diversity, Inclusion & Belonging.
While there are increased lawsuits and efforts against proponents of DEI, we should continue to work against bias. When we do nothing against this onslaught of pushback, we are helping our society persist in its practice of inequity. A central component of any change process, personal change or organizational change, is the concept of practice. But what is practice, and why is it so important?
Practice is simply the act of doing something, whether that something is as complicated as playing a piano solo or as simple as washing the dishes. We call it practice when the act becomes a repeated behavior. Doing anything repeatedly makes you improve at doing that thing. Ng’ethe Maina & Staci K. Haines, The Transformative Power of Practice, Strozzi Inst. (2008). If you visit the internet to create a plan on how to run a marathon, there is plenty of advice on what you have to do to get to your ultimate goal. Whether you’re a novice or an expert, you can find a plan that will ultimately help you practice and develop the skills you need to run the race. If you fail to practice what you need to improve, you will continue down the track of being unfit and unable to run the marathon. As lawyers we are also in a race, a race to ensure a country, a legal community, and a justice system that are equitable. Many of our systems have been in existence from the founding of our country, getting to the illusive justice is a marathon as well. Whether you’re a novice or an expert, this race for justice is hard work. If practice is the act of doing something repeatedly to improve at it, then regardless of your conscious or unconscious effort, you are getting better at something. If you allow your brain to make unconscious decisions and judgments for you, you will continue to improve in the making of decision unconsciously. Continuing to do nothing, while knowing that your brain works to contribute to your bias, continues you down the track of being unfit for justice and at risk of perpetuating harm. However, if you practice critical and thoughtful engagement, you will improve in seeing beyond the surface through a bias lens. We are learning through either our conscious behavior or our unconscious behavior. To become competent at any
behavior, we have to get there in stages. Mike Kavis, The Four Stages of Cloud Competence, Forbes (Oct 21, 2015).
One stage, intentional practices are those that we choose to do to transform the way we show up in the world. Through new practices we increase choice and alignment with our values. To garner a change in our criminal justice system and make it just, we must practice, ultimately controlling the functioning of our minds.
As a Black woman, I considered the expectations I have for myself, for my daughter, and for my country. I see how women of color are held to impossible standards and the suffering they endure when they fall short of imposed expectations. As a legal professional, I contemplated my responsibility to our criminal legal system, a system that often holds the lives of individuals and concerns the basic right of freedom in human hands. As a DEI professional, I envisioned my capacity to help clear the fog associated with bias and center marginalized perspectives for privileged identities. Despite being told “no” or to “stay in your place,” I know that “we shall overcome.” Remaining grounded in optimism, faith, truth, and service, I might be exhausted but I am not finished, because this is the moment in the American experiment that I was made for. This is the moment where the foundational principles of justice, fairness, diversity, equity, and inclusion are more important than ever. This is why it is imperative to follow ABA Resolution 107 and make DEI training a mandatory component of attorney training. ABA Resolution 107 (adopted Feb. 8, 2016). “The light of America’s promise will always burn bright as long as we never give up and as long as we keep fighting.” Vice President Kamala Harris. Addressing these five DEI myths can help us to better understand our multifaceted selves and value the labor of all the perspectives in the theater. Considering the bias underlying the foundation of our legal analysis can help us see more clearly and engage more critically with ourselves and others, not just as stakeholders in this system, but as multifaceted individuals. A color-conscious ideology, grounded in the principles of fairness and justice that leads to a cultural cohesion in our system where we recognize and value other perspectives and the flaws in our own, with unrelenting conscious practice may lead to a better, more equitable legal system. An improved understanding of ourselves and an improved appreciation of other perspectives will produce better results in our legal system and ultimately a better America.
