The Great Colorblind Illusion

The Great Colorblind Illusion

In the concluding episode of In Defense of DEI, Steven Teske confronts one of the most seductive—and dangerous—ideas in today’s civil-rights debate: that “colorblindness” is the same thing as equality. Using a recent media controversy involving a student bullied for wearing a MAGA hat, Teske draws a necessary distinction between individual prejudice and systemic discrimination. Bullying and bias against any student are wrong and must be addressed. But isolated acts of mistreatment do not erase the enduring structural realities of racial exclusion, unequal access to power, and institutional barriers that civil-rights law was created to confront. From Chief Justice John Roberts’s vision of formal equality to the continuing effort to dismantle disparate-impact protections, this episode examines how supposedly neutral rules can preserve deeply unequal outcomes. Teske explains why facial neutrality is not enough when hiring systems, testing structures, algorithms, and institutional practices continue to produce predictable racial exclusion without ever mentioning race. As corporations quietly retreat from public diversity targets and courts increasingly treat race-conscious remedies as the greater constitutional harm, The Great Colorblind Illusion asks the question at the heart of this series: Are we creating a genuine meritocracy—or simply protecting old pipelines of privilege under a new legal vocabulary? This is not an argument for quotas or lowered standards. It is an argument for reality-based justice: objective systems, structured decision-making, and laws capable of recognizing discrimination even when it is carefully disguised. The final episode of In Defense of DEI is a call to reject willful blindness, challenge manufactured grievance, and keep the nation’s civil-rights guardrails from being turned against the very people they were designed to protect. Justice ReDesigned is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. Thanks for reading Justice ReDesigned! This post is public so feel free to share it. Get full access to Justice ReDesigned at steventeske.substack.com/subscribe [https://steventeske.substack.com/subscribe?utm_medium=podcast&utm_campaign=CTA_4]

Grace for the Oppressor? Part Two

In this episode of Justice ReDesigned, Steve Teske continues his examination of memory, accountability, and the moral inversion at the heart of the modern backlash against diversity, equity, inclusion, and historical truth. Part One asked whether enslavers and Confederate leaders deserve grace because they were “products of their time.” Part Two asks a different question: What happens when a society continues to honor them? Drawing on history, law, civic responsibility, and personal family history, Teske explores the difference between remembering the past and celebrating it. He argues that museums teach history, textbooks provide context, but public honors—school names, monuments, and commemorations—communicate values. This episode examines: • Why naming a school is an act of honor, not historical documentation• The difference between remembrance and celebration• How Confederate symbols continue to communicate exclusion and hierarchy• Why “wokeness” has become a slur for awareness and historical accountability• What Germany’s confrontation with its past can teach us about public memory• Why discomfort is not oppression—and why accountability is not humiliation Teske also shares a deeply personal reflection about his own family’s connection to slavery and explains why acknowledging history honestly is not an act of self-condemnation, but an act of civic integrity. At its core, this episode asks a simple but profound question: What belongs in memory—and what belongs in places of honor? Because some things belong in museums. Some things belong in textbooks. Some things belong in memory. But not everything that belongs to history deserves celebration. And when we confuse remembrance with honor, we do not preserve history. We rehearse humiliation. Steve Teske is a retired judge from Georgia and currently is legal counsel to the Department of Social Services for the Pascua Yaqui Pueblo Tribe. He has testified before Congress on four occasions and numerous state legislatures on issues involving civil rights, reducing racial disparities in justice systems, and juvenile justice reforms. Teske has authored several articles published in professional and peer-reviewed journals and is the recipient of numerous awards including the Juvenile Law Prize Award. He hosts The Teske Brief podcast at www.youtube.com/@judgeteske Justice ReDesigned is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. Thanks for reading Justice ReDesigned! This post is public so feel free to share it. Get full access to Justice ReDesigned at steventeske.substack.com/subscribe [https://steventeske.substack.com/subscribe?utm_medium=podcast&utm_campaign=CTA_4]

Grace for the Oppressor?

In this episode of Justice ReDesigned, retired Judge Steve Teske continues the DEI series with a deeply personal and morally direct examination of what he calls one of the most revealing demands of the current backlash against “wokeness”: the demand for grace—not for the oppressed, but for the oppressor. Titled Grace for the Oppressor? Why the War on “Wokeness” Is a Moral Evasion, this episode confronts the argument that Confederate leaders, enslavers, and defenders of racial bondage should be judged gently because they were “products of their time.” Judge Teske challenges that claim at its core, arguing that slavery was not morally ambiguous in the 19th century. Abolitionists condemned it, enslaved people resisted it, religious leaders denounced it, and millions fought a war over it. The problem was not ignorance. The problem was indifference, self-interest, and power. Through the lens of Confederate school names, public memory, and the misuse of the word “grace,” this episode asks a central question: grace for whom? For those who bought, sold, exploited, and dehumanized others? Or for those who endured the trauma of that oppression and whose descendants are still asked to carry its weight quietly? Judge Teske argues that grace without accountability is not reconciliation. It is absolution without repentance. And when society extends mercy upward while demanding endurance downward, it is not healing history. It is protecting power. This episode is a powerful meditation on memory, moral responsibility, and the danger of using “neutrality” and “grace” to avoid telling the truth. Justice ReDesigned is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. Thanks for reading Justice ReDesigned! This post is public so feel free to share it. Get full access to Justice ReDesigned at steventeske.substack.com/subscribe [https://steventeske.substack.com/subscribe?utm_medium=podcast&utm_campaign=CTA_4]

When Power Claims Victimhood

In this episode of Justice ReDesigned, retired Judge Steve Teske examines a growing and dangerous inversion in America’s civil rights debate: the claim that civil rights laws, diversity efforts, and inclusion strategies are now forms of discrimination. Titled When Power Claims Victimhood, this episode challenges the narrative that equality has gone too far. Judge Teske argues that civil rights laws were not designed to protect historical dominance from discomfort, but to dismantle systemic exclusion and expand access to opportunity. When accountability is reframed as punishment, inclusion as favoritism, and structural reform as discrimination, the meaning of civil rights itself is turned upside down. With sharp commentary and historical perspective, this episode explores the myth of “reverse discrimination,” the misuse of neutrality, and the difference between genuine harm and the discomfort that comes when unearned advantage is challenged. The episode makes clear that civil rights did not create victims; they named them. And when a society begins to call equality oppression, it reveals more about who it believes the country belongs to than about civil rights law itself. This is not just a debate about DEI. It is a debate about memory, power, fairness, and whether America is willing to tell the truth about why civil rights protections were necessary in the first place. Justice ReDesigned is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. Get full access to Justice ReDesigned at steventeske.substack.com/subscribe [https://steventeske.substack.com/subscribe?utm_medium=podcast&utm_campaign=CTA_4]

Episode 10: When the Acronym Retreats but the Architecture Remains

In this episode of Justice ReDesigned, Steve Teske examines what may be the most important development in the DEI debate so far: what happens when organizations stop talking about Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion—but continue doing the work. Using Goldman Sachs as a case study, Teske explores the growing disconnect between public rhetoric and operational reality. As legal challenges, political pressure, and accusations of “reverse discrimination” reshape the landscape, many organizations are quietly retreating from the language of DEI while preserving the systems that made those initiatives effective in the first place. This episode explores: • Why Goldman Sachs eliminated explicit diversity criteria for board evaluations while maintaining its commitment to inclusion and broad talent recruitment• The rise of what Teske calls the Corporate Chill—when legal and political risk alters organizational behavior before the law requires it• Why critics often focus on the visible variable of diversity while overlooking the inclusion systems underneath• The distinction between demographic diversity and cognitive diversity, and why both matter for governance and decision-making• How structured hiring, transparent promotion systems, and bias-resistant evaluation processes function as organizational architecture rather than political ideology Drawing on the insights of diversity strategist Ginny Clarke and finance scholar Alex Edmans, Teske argues that the real story is not whether companies are abandoning DEI, but whether they are abandoning the systems that reduce talent waste, challenge groupthink, and improve performance. The acronym may be retreating. But the architecture may still be doing the work. Because institutions rarely survive by defending slogans. They survive by solving problems. And in the end, the spreadsheet usually tells the truth. Justice ReDesigned is a podcast about rethinking justice, challenging assumptions, and rebuilding the systems that shape people’s lives. Thanks for reading Justice ReDesigned! This post is public so feel free to share it. Get full access to Justice ReDesigned at steventeske.substack.com/subscribe [https://steventeske.substack.com/subscribe?utm_medium=podcast&utm_campaign=CTA_4]