Racial rhetorical disciplining: On diversity, authoritarianism, and carceral responses

This article examines discourses surrounding diversity and anti-racism in the case Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard (SFFA). I argue that both the majority and dissenting opinions illustrate what I refer to as racial rhetorical disciplining, which I describe as the process of rhetorically constraining how we understand race and liberation to frameworks of liberal individualism and carcerality. The majority opinion frames any use of race, including anti-racist discourses, become akin to racism. The dissenting opinions deliver important critiques of colorblindness, yet ultimately defend affirmative action through appeals to U.S. exceptionalism and carceral logics of individual guilt and innocence which limits their liberatory potential. This essay thus considers SFFA to grapple with contemporary political discourse surrounding race, justice, and diversity more broadly.