S'intéressant au débat public québécois concernant l'affaire du mot en « n », survenue en 2020 à l'Université d'Ottawa, cet article vise à déterminer comment les discours de déni du racisme produits par les membres des groupes dominants se maintiennent au sein de l'espace public, malgré les critiques anti-racistes produites par les membres des groupes dominés. En combinant la théorie critique de la race, la théorie de l'injustice et l'ignorance épistémiques et la théorie des actes de discours, cet article propose une analyse critique du discours médiatique québécois sur l'affaire du mot en « n ». Il retrace ainsi les positions dénonçant l'utilisation du mot en « n » comme une insulte raciale et une manifestation du racisme systémique et celles justifiant la nécessité de protéger la liberté universitaire et la liberté d'expression face à une culture de l'annulation menaçant de les censurer. L'analyse du cas québécois révèle que le déni public du racisme reproduit des injustices herméneutiques à l’égard des critiques anti-racistes, particulièrement celles formulées par les communautés noires, et cela à travers un nouveau mécanisme linguistique que je nomme les « déviations illocutoires ».

In this essay we argue that the ideology of colorblind justice has made resisting the retreat from public school desegregation a hard sell in postracial America. We do not believe that desegregation is the silver bullet for solving all the problems with public education. Nor do we believe that it alone can close the racial achievement gap. Yet there is convincing evidence regarding the potential benefits of desegregation and evidence on its negative consequences is weak. Therefore we believe that it is a policy still worth pursuing. Our hope is that by casting light on the anatomy of colorblind justice and its limits we can contribute to ongoing efforts to ensure that desegregation remains in the conversation about how to address the unfinished business of racial justice.

This article offers a critique of the very claim that we live in postracial times, and examines the residue of old systems of racism intermeshed with new forms of racism that perpetuate systematic institutional racism. I argue that to combat institutional racism we need post-racism rather than postracialism. Additionally, I reject the Black-white Binary as the singular or even primary paradigm for understanding racism in order to challenge narrow conceptualizations of racism. Finally, I argue for a more nuanced and complex analysis of Blackness.

This essay reconsiders the prospects for postracialist discourse. Critics tend not to take seriously enough the strongest case that can be made for viewing contemporary U.S. racial politics through the postracial lens. As a result, some important criticisms—the ones that survive postracialism’s reformulation in these stronger terms—have yet to be fully developed. It is important to develop a critique of the strongest form of postracialism, because this form of the view shares, or exemplifies, certain problems in garden-variety liberal antiracisms. Clarifying these problems in the more extreme conceptual environment of postracialism may help clarify their implications for the much more widespread commitments of mainstream post-civil rights thinking.

This enthographically-based essay uses the case of Starbucks and the company's diversity policies and relationship with Magic Johnson to explore the desire for postracialism in post Civil Rights—post Martin Luther King, Jr. and post protest—mainstream America. Where did this desire come from and how did corporate America package this desire? What is the relationship between the selling of postracialism and voting for Barack Obama? What are the implications of these marketing moves? What do they tell us about business and about ourselves?