File: powell final for Darby 2009] Created on: 3/15/2009 12:55:00 PM Last Printed: 4/3/2009 10:11:00 AM POST-RACIALISM OR TARGETED UNIVERSALISM 791 sensitive to race or require the use of racial classifications.25 They wrongly assume as an article of faith that colorblindness as a process is the way to achieve colorblind results. Other conservatives argue that we must convince racially marginalized groups to adopt the proper cultural values so that they may take advantage of the new race-blind landscape. The opportunity is there; if Blacks and Latinos fail to take advantage of this new arrangement, it is their own fault. For the conservatives, it would be a moral and legal mistake to have the state intervene. The post-racialists are more likely to support state intervention, but they are reluctant to do much unless it can be framed in a universal manner where an explicit consideration of race is largely off the table.26 This has the apparent advantage of helping those who have been historically excluded while avoiding being race-specific, which is seen as divisive.27 There are a number of problems with this approach, which I will call false universalism. One concern is conceptual, another is empirical, and still a third is problematic from a legal or policy perspective. Given the constraint of space, I will focus primarily on the first two problems. Universal programs begin with a conception of what is universal based on background assumptions that are non-universal. Virtually all universal approaches are de facto targeted or particular.28 The Social Security 25. See City of Richmond v. J.A. Croson Co., 488 U.S. 469, 493-94 (1989); Metro Broadcasting, Inc. v. FCC, 497 U.S. 547 (1990) (O’Connor, J., dissenting); Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Pena, 515 U.S. 200 (1995). 26. See, e.g. WILLIAM JULIUS WILSON, THE DECLINING SIGNIFICANCE OF RACE (2d ed. 1980). Wilson has been on of the most influential and persistent advocates for a post-racial universal approach. In his most recent book, WILLIAM JULIUS WILSON, MORE THAN JUST RACE (2009), Wilson explicitly rejected his earlier position: “The question is not whether the policy should be race-neutral or universal; the question is whether the policy is framed to facilitate a frank discussion of the problems that ought to be addressed and to generate broad political support to alleviate them. So now my position has changed: in framing public policy we should not shy away from an explicit discussion of the specific issues of race . . . .” Id. at 141. Wilson argues for frame that recognizes both the universal and the particular aspects of race. He also asserts that the discussion of poverty and race must put a structural approach not at the exclusive focus but certainly the primary focus. The shift in Wilson’s position is very significant and should give serious pause to liberals that shy away from race. It is still important to figure out how to talk about race and link it to a broader discussion. 27. While President Obama expresses a preference for universal programs to address the issue of racialized disparities and some hesitance for race specific programs, he also acknowledges the need for targeted programs. In particular, he asserts that a targeted focus will be needed for both “under class” blacks and undocumented immigrants. See OBAMA, AUDACITY OF HOPE, supra note 16. While the approach I am advocating here is in much agreement, there is a difference in scope. Programs should be universal in approach, but without being targeted the goal of fairness and inclusion will falter—not just for inner city blacks and the undocumented, but for many other racialized and non-racialized groups, such as rural groups, disabled groups, the elderly, etc. This is in part an empirical claim. Where untargeted universal approaches fall short, we should be willing to adjust. There is also a way to communicate this need that should be able to avoid most of the racial divisiveness. 28. ROBERT C. LIEBERMAN, SHIFTING THE COLOR LINE: RACE AND THE AMERICAN WELFARE STATE 227-28 (Harvard Univ. Press 2001). Lieberman argues that there are a number of ways a program that purports to be universal can in fact be particular. He does not just focus on the targeting, but also the administration and funding of a program. He sees social security as our best example of a truly universal program. But others have challenged even this claim. See, e.g., Alice O’Connor, The “New Institutionalism” and the Racial Divide, 29 REV. AM. HIST. 111, 117–18