Color blindness (sometimes spelled colour-blindness; also called race blindness) is a sociological term referring to the disregard of racial characteristics when selecting which individuals will participate in some activity or receive some service.

Put into practice, color-blind operations use no racial data or profiling and make no classifications, categorizations, or distinctions based upon race. An example of this would be a college processing admissions without regard to or knowledge of the racial characteristics of applicants.^[1]

This article deals with the United States, but similar phenomena exist in other cultures.

The term is sometimes also used in a non-political sense; for example, love is often described as colorblind.

The name is by analogy with physiological color blindness, a genetic trait that prevents some people from distinguishing certain colors such as similar shades of red and green. The term is figurative, as most color blind people can identify race reliably.

In the United States of America, the term "color blindness" is one that has stemmed from racial-equality activists, such as Martin Luther King, Jr. There are two general perspectives of color blindness and this schism in the term's meaning has potentially broken it down into two debated definitions. Especially among liberals, the term "color blindness" may be perceived as a technique that is either positive or negative toward racially marginalized groups: supporters of color blindness tend to perceive it as act of equality in that it involves the beneficial, deliberate avoidance of privileging any one race over others; critics tend to perceive it as an indirect act of oppression in that it involves ignoring and overlooking the privileges already bestowed upon certain races over others.

From an American conservative standpoint, color blindness is generally perceived as an issue of fairness rather than an attempt to provide an advantage to either socially dominant groups or minority groups. This view of color blindness differs from the framework presented by Martin Luther King Jr., whose argument premised on group rights, with recognition of unequal power relations between the majority and minority groups.^[2] Conservative color blindness, on the other hand centers on individual rights; that individuals, not groups are protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. It idealizes rhetoric and assimilation.^[2] Any reference in law is therefore considered discriminatory. This belief is based on the assumption that racism is not a determining factor in the lives of Americans, and furthermore assumes that laws passed since the African-American Civil Rights Movement have operated as intended in stopping and preventing existing racist practices previously embedded within American social discourse, and therefore any racially-based laws above these reforms constitute Reverse discrimination against white people.^[2]

The neoconservative color blind view calls for the repeal of affirmative action and other race based remedial programs, arguing that they make white people the true victims. Opponents of this view counter that such a repeal would lead to undesirable outcomes that can involve racial injustice^[3] and that such policies make no sense in a society where people have been and continue to be treated differently on basis of ethnicity alone.^[4]

From both perspectives, color blindness may be perceived as intending to help minorities even if critics claim that it may unintentionally harm them.

The equal opportunity approach of color blindness contrasts with positive discrimination or affirmative action that would actively attempt to favour those people considered to have been disadvantaged by historical racial prejudice, or whose racial group might otherwise be considered under-represented, for example in a university.^[5]

Ward Connerly of the American Civil Rights Institute, has promoted and won a series of ballot initiatives in the states of California (California Proposition 209 (1996)), Washington (1998 - I-200), and Michigan (the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative - MCRI, or Proposal 2, 2006). California's initiative was co-authored by academics Tom Wood and Glynn Custred in the mid-1990s and was taken up by Connerly after he was appointed in 1994 by Governor Pete Wilson to the University of California Board of Regents. Each of the ballot initiatives have won, and Connerly plans what he calls a "Super-Tuesday" of five additional states in 2008.

Professor Carl Cohen of the University of Michigan, who was a supporter of Michigan's Proposal 2, have argued that the term "affirmative action" should be defined differently than "race preference," and that while socioeconomically based or anti-discrimination types of affirmative action are permissible, those that give preference to individuals solely based on their race or gender should not be permitted. Cohen also helped find evidence in 1996 through the Freedom of Information Act that led to the cases filed by Jennifer Gratz and Barbara Grutter against the University of Michigan for its undergraduate and law admissions policy - cases which were decided by the U.S. Supreme Court on June 23, 2003.

Some national bloggers and internet resources who favor the "equal opportunity" approach over "positive discrimination" include John Rosenberg's Discriminations, Tim Fay's Adversity.net, and Chetly Zarko's Power, Politics, & Money.

Actor-producer-director Kenneth Branagh frequently uses race-blind casting in his Shakespearean films. In Much Ado About Nothing, he cast Denzel Washington as Don Pedro; in his version of Hamlet, Francisco, one of the sentries in the first scene, was played by an African-American; and in his As You Like It, David Oyelowo portrays Orlando. There are also several Japanese actors in the latter film.^[6]

Ward Connerly of the American Civil Rights Institute, has promoted and won a series of ballot initiatives in the states of California (California Proposition 209 (1996)), Washington (1998 - I-200), and Michigan (the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative - MCRI, or Proposal 2, 2006). California's initiative was co-authored by academics Tom Wood and Glynn Custred in the mid-1990s and was taken up by Connerly after he was appointed in 1994 by Governor Pete Wilson to the University of California Board of Regents. Each of the ballot initiatives have won, and Connerly plans what he calls a "Super-Tuesday" of five additional states in 2008.

Professor Carl Cohen of the University of Michigan, who was a supporter of Michigan's Proposal 2, have argued that the term "affirmative action" should be defined differently than "race preference," and that while socioeconomically based or anti-discrimination types of affirmative action are permissible, those that give preference to individuals solely based on their race or gender should not be permitted. Cohen also helped find evidence in 1996 through the Freedom of Information Act that led to the cases filed by Jennifer Gratz and Barbara Grutter against the University of Michigan for its undergraduate and law admissions policy - cases which were decided by the U.S. Supreme Court on June 23, 2003.

Some national bloggers and internet resources who favor the "equal opportunity" approach over "positive discrimination" include John Rosenberg's Discriminations, Tim Fay's Adversity.net, and Chetly Zarko's Power, Politics, & Money.

Actor-producer-director Kenneth Branagh frequently uses race-blind casting in his Shakespearean films. In Much Ado About Nothing, he cast Denzel Washington as Don Pedro; in his version of Hamlet, Francisco, one of the sentries in the first scene, was played by an African-American; and in his As You Like It, David Oyelowo portrays Orlando. There are also several Japanese actors in the latter film.^[6]