Racial capitalism — the process of deriving social and economic value from racial identity — is a longstanding, common, and deeply problematic practice. This Article is the first to identify racial capitalism as a systemic phenomenon and to undertake a close examination of its causes and consequences.

The Article focuses on instances of racial capitalism in which white individuals and predominantly white institutions use non-white people to acquire social and economic value. Our affirmative action doctrine provides much of the impetus for this form of racial capitalism. That doctrine has fueled an intense legal and social preoccupation with the notion of diversity, which encourages white individuals and predominantly white institutions to engage in racial capitalism by using non-white people to acquire social and economic value. An examination of these consequences is particularly timely given the Supreme Court’s recent grant of certiorari in Fisher v. University of Texas.

Racial capitalism has serious negative consequences both for individuals and for society as a whole. The process of racial capitalism requires commodification of racial identity, which degrades that identity by reducing it to another thing to be bought and sold. Commodification also fosters racial resentment by causing non-white people to feel used or exploited by white people. And the superficial value assigned to non-whiteness within a system of racial capitalism displaces measures that would lead to meaningful social reform.

In an ideal society, commodification of racial identity would not occur. Given the imperfections of our current society, however, the Article instead proposes a pragmatic approach of reactive commodification. Under this approach, we would discourage commodification of race. But if commodification did occur, we would identify it as commodification, call attention to its harms, and ensure that non-white individuals received compensation for the value derived from their racial identity. This approach will ultimately allow progress toward a society in which we successfully recognize and respect racial identity without engaging in racial capitalism.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2027251&forum_id=2#21373021)

http://www.law.du.edu/index.php/profile/nancy-leong

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2027251&forum_id=2#21374384)

she looks gaunt

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2027251&forum_id=2#21374395)

Compensation = getting hired, getting into the school, etc.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2027251&forum_id=2#21378921)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2027251&forum_id=2#21373050)

A predominantly white university’s administration,

concerned that prospective students will be deterred by the

school’s racial homogeneity, uses Photoshop to add a black student to the photo on the cover of its application for admission. A

predominantly white company, facing an array of lawsuits alleging

race and gender discrimination, aggressively recruits and hires

non-wh

in which a white individual or a predominantly white institution

6

ite employees in order to create a track record of minority

representation.

5

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2027251&forum_id=2#21373054)

Why she is a wrong:

1) The most egregious and widespread uses of this "commodification" come from non-profit seeking institutions such as colleges and the government. Right off the bat, her label of "Racial Capitalism" is clearly incorrect.

2) She looks at the proximate but not ultimate causes of this racial commodification. Take a Business, she blames their initiative to create "Diversity" as the reason for the racial commodification. But that is only the proximate cause. The ultimate cause is a gov't apparatus that seeks to force businesses to abide by this silly notion of diversity. IF they don't, they open themselves up to lawsuits from employees, prospective employees, etc. Furthermore, gov't run colleges and schools have indoctrinated its students into giving a shit about race. So that the public is programmed to favour "diversity" and therefore the business is merely rationally responding to this demand. As usual, you can trace the ills of society back to the government.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2027251&forum_id=2#21373135)

conception of property in several ways. The first two classify people in relation to the property regime: First, property ownership was contingent on racial identity—only white people (specifically, men) could own property. Second, some racialized bodies were property—most obviously Blacks, although some Native Americans were also enslaved.

Whiteness both allowed ownership of property and insulated those considered white from becoming the property of others.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2027251&forum_id=2#21373139)

example of the persistence of whiteness as property. By adopting a principle of colorblindness, the Supreme Court protects the property interest in whiteness by defending the status quo of the distribution of social resources.

Rather than asking whether certain outcomes are fair to the parties to a case, or even whether they serve society as a whole, courts simply ask whether they are facially race-neutral. In so doing, they preserve a racial hierarchy

in which whiteness is privileged without the necessity of white people acknowledging their own privilege

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2027251&forum_id=2#21373172)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pEOlK4y8AUo&t=7m40s

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2027251&forum_id=2#21373418)

http://www.law.du.edu/documents/directory/full-time/nancy-leong.pdf

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2027251&forum_id=2#21374513)

Nancy Leong

University of Denver Sturm College of Law

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2027251&forum_id=2#36546567)