← All Issues

Race & Civil Rights

What obligations does society have to address historical and ongoing racial disparities?

Each issue breaks into the specific questions Congress actually fights over. Read each position, then head to the interactive version of this issue to mark which reflects your view and build a message to your representatives.

Component 1 of 6
Affirmative action

Structural Reform

Diversity produces real, measurable benefits, and race-conscious approaches correct for bias baked into supposedly neutral systems. Diversity in education and employment produces measurable benefits for all students and workers. Race-conscious admissions and hiring correct for documented bias in facially neutral systems.

Targeted Remedies

Race-conscious admissions themselves are gone, but socioeconomic preferences that correlate with race are still on the table. The Supreme Court's Students for Fair Admissions decision (2023) ended race-conscious admissions at universities. Socioeconomic preferences — which correlate with race — remain permissible and may achieve similar diversity goals.

Individual Standard

Equal protection means treating people as individuals, not sorting them by a trait they never chose. The Constitution guarantees equal protection regardless of race. Race-conscious admissions and hiring are both illegal and immoral — discriminating against individuals for a characteristic they cannot control.

Documented compromise zone
Socioeconomic preferences in college admissions, place-based (school district) diversity programs, and targeted outreach in recruitment are legal alternatives that achieve some of the same diversity goals.
Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, 600 U.S. 181 (2023); socioeconomic admissions research
Component 2 of 6
Police reform

Structural Reform

These disparities show up consistently across every stage of police contact, not just one flashpoint moment. Systemic racism in policing produces documented disparities in stops, searches, arrests, and use of force. Structural reforms — not just individual accountability — are required to address a pattern this consistent.

Targeted Remedies

Minority communities often face both more crime and more problematic police contact at once — reform has to address both sides. Police reform should focus on training, accountability, and data collection. Both over-policing and under-policing harm communities — particularly minority communities that both experience more crime and more problematic police contact.

Individual Standard

Most officers do the job right, and a blanket 'systemically racist' label doesn't reflect that. The framing of policing as systemically racist is contested by the evidence and deeply unfair to the vast majority of officers. Reform should focus on individual bad actors and improving officer training, not defunding.

Documented compromise zone
The George Floyd Justice in Policing Act passed the House but failed the Senate. Elements with more bipartisan support: banning chokeholds, creating a use-of-force database, and requiring body cameras.
George Floyd Justice in Policing Act (H.R. 1280); Roland Fryer use-of-force research; DOJ pattern-or-practice investigations
Component 3 of 6
Reparations

Structural Reform

This isn't ancient history — the wealth gap it created is still measurable in family balance sheets today. The documented economic consequences of slavery, followed by Jim Crow and redlining, are measurable and ongoing. A reparations program — whether cash or targeted investment — is a matter of basic justice.

Targeted Remedies

Figuring out the right remedy before locking in a specific program is the more careful sequencing. Study commissions (H.R. 40) can assess the scope and form of appropriate redress before committing to a specific program. Community investment, homeownership assistance, and education funding are reparations-adjacent policies with broader political support.

Individual Standard

Neither today's taxpayers nor today's beneficiaries were parties to slavery itself — collective guilt isn't how responsibility is supposed to work. Collective guilt and collective punishment based on race violate basic principles of individual responsibility. Current taxpayers did not own slaves; current African Americans were not enslaved. Reparations would be divisive and constitutionally dubious.

Documented compromise zone
Evanston, Illinois implemented a targeted homeownership reparations program for Black residents affected by documented local housing discrimination — a model that ties payments to specific, documented harm.
H.R. 40 (various sessions); Evanston Restorative Housing Program; Bruce's Beach restitution
Component 4 of 6
Voting access

Structural Reform

This is a live, documented pattern right now, not a relic from before the Voting Rights Act. Voter suppression is ongoing and documented — from poll closures in minority communities to ID requirements that correlate with race. The John Lewis Voting Rights Act would restore key Voting Rights Act protections weakened by recent Court decisions.

Targeted Remedies

Whether a given policy is suppression or just ordinary administration is genuinely contested — consistent standards would cut through that. The evidence on whether specific policies constitute intentional suppression vs. administrative management is contested. Consistent national standards for voting access would reduce state-by-state inequity regardless of intent.

Individual Standard

Not every ID law or polling change is suppression — that label gets applied for political reasons far more than the evidence supports. The framing of every voter ID law or polling change as "suppression" is politically motivated. Shelby County v. Holder correctly found that the coverage formula used to trigger pre-clearance was outdated.

Documented compromise zone
The Electoral Count Reform Act (2022) addressed one discrete problem — presidential election certification — with broad bipartisan support. It demonstrates that targeted fixes are more achievable than omnibus voting rights legislation.
Shelby County v. Holder (2013); John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act (H.R. 4); ECRA (2022)
Component 5 of 6
Education equity

Structural Reform

Tying school budgets to local property values guarantees some communities start every year behind. Property-tax-based school funding systematically underfunds schools in low-income, often minority communities. Federal and state funding formulas should be revised to address this structural inequity.

Targeted Remedies

Almost everyone agrees on the goal of funding equity; choice programs can help families now while the underlying formulas get fixed. School funding equity is broadly supported in principle. Charter schools and school choice programs can expand options for families in underserved areas while traditional public school reform continues.

Individual Standard

Wealthy families have always had school choice — extending that same option to trapped families is a genuine civil-rights question. School choice — including charters, vouchers, and education savings accounts — gives minority families trapped in failing schools the options wealthy families already have. It is the civil rights issue of our time.

Documented compromise zone
Weighted student funding formulas — directing more money per pupil to low-income students — have bipartisan support and have been implemented in multiple states.
ESSA Title I weighted funding provisions; Education Finance Incentive Grant program; state equity funding models
Component 6 of 6
Disparate impact & Title VII enforcement

Structural Reform

The federal government is stepping back from enforcing the tool that catches bias hiding behind neutral-looking policies. The DOJ's June 9, 2026 opinion declaring the EEOC's 55-year-old disparate-impact framework unconstitutional doesn't change Title VII itself or bind any court, but it signals the federal government will stop enforcing the theory that let plaintiffs challenge neutral policies with discriminatory effects. That undermines a tool that has caught bias no individual complaint alone could prove, even where no one intended to discriminate.

Targeted Remedies

Nothing about the actual law changed, but enforcement priorities shift immediately — and could shift right back under a future administration. The DOJ opinion is an executive-branch legal position, not a change to the statute or binding Supreme Court precedent — Griggs v. Duke Power and the Civil Rights Act of 1991's disparate-impact provisions remain good law, and private plaintiffs can still sue. But it will reshape EEOC enforcement priorities immediately, and a future administration could reverse the opinion just as easily as this one issued it.

Individual Standard

Chasing a statistical balance instead of the best candidate is exactly the kind of decision-making this opinion is trying to stop. Requiring employers to defend statistical outcomes alone, without any evidence of intent to discriminate, pressures businesses to make hiring decisions based on race, sex, or other protected traits just to avoid disparate-effect liability. The opinion argues the Constitution requires proof of actual discriminatory intent, not just a numbers gap, before liability attaches.

Documented compromise zone
Even the DOJ's own opinion doesn't eliminate disparate-impact claims — plaintiffs can still bring them, courts remain bound by Griggs and the 1991 Civil Rights Act until a court says otherwise, and the opinion itself proposes three limiting principles for how courts should apply the doctrine rather than abolishing it outright — meaning the practical fight right now is over how narrowly the theory applies, not whether it exists at all.
DOJ Office of Legal Counsel opinion on Title VII disparate impact (June 9, 2026); Executive Order 14281, "Restoring Equality of Opportunity and Meritocracy"; Griggs v. Duke Power Co., 401 U.S. 424 (1971); Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(k)
Take action on Race & Civil Rights