Veiled Threats: Color-Blind Frames and Group Threat in Affirmative Action Discourse

This research examines the way color-blind rhetorical techniques are used by supporters and opponents in legal documents submitted to the latest U.S. Supreme court case on affirmative action. Eduardo Bonilla-Silva posited that color-blind ideology is the dominant racial ideology in the United States. We focused our critical discourse analysis particularly on the use of color-blind frames as described by Bonilla-Silva. This research also assesses how group threat was used within color-blind frames to activate feelings of racial animosity, a distinction from the color-blind frames that act to minimize race. Drawing on data from 184 amicus briefs submitted for 2013 and 2016 and using critical discourse analysis, we found both supporters and opponents used color-blind frames, but that these frames were more prevalent (and distinctively used) in opponents' briefs, where we observed all four of Bonilla-Silva's color-blind frames. We also found the use of threat by opponents to be distinct and prevalent, suggesting that affirmative action was framed as a source of competition that threatened resources held in high regard by white America. We discuss the implications of these findings for the future of affirmative action and make suggestions for future research.