The Gordian Knot that is Academia and Racism: Partners in Injustice

Academics engage in racial categorization as a tool for analyzing inequality and as a means of supporting political activism, sustaining academic disciplines, and aligning with professional incentives. While many scholars aim to challenge and deconstruct racial categories, their persistent use in research and discourse paradoxically reinforces their presence within social and institutional structures.

The debate between "splitters" and "lumpers" is central to discussions of racial categorization. Splitters emphasize fine distinctions, dividing human populations into numerous racial or ethnic groups based on specific genetic, cultural, or physical traits. Lumpers, conversely, group people into broader categories, arguing that racial differences are minor and socially constructed rather than biologically distinct. In the context of race, modern genetics supports the lumper perspective, showing that human variation is continuous, with more genetic diversity within so-called racial groups than between them. This challenges rigid racial classifications and highlights the social and political forces shaping how race is perceived.

In colleges and universities, theories of race are typically taught through interdisciplinary approaches, often within sociology, history, political science, anthropology, and ethnic studies courses. These theories explore the social construction of race, racial identity, systemic racism, and power dynamics. Key frameworks include:

• Social Constructionism – Race is not biologically inherent, but a social construct shaped by historical and cultural contexts.
• Critical Race Theory (CRT) – Examines how laws and institutions maintain racial inequalities and how race intersects with other forms of oppression.
• Intersectionality – Coined by Kimberlé Crenshaw, this theory explores how race intersects with other social identities (e.g., gender, class) to create unique experiences of discrimination or privilege.
• Whiteness Studies: This field investigates the historical and social formation of whiteness as a racial category and source of privilege.
• Postcolonial and Decolonial Theories – Analyze the impacts of colonialism and imperialism on racial hierarchies and global power structures.

These theories are often taught through historical case studies, contemporary examples, and critical discussions, encouraging students to analyze race as a dynamic and evolving social phenomenon.

Theories of race, while primarily focused on critiquing and deconstructing racial hierarchies, also contribute to the perpetuation of racial categorization in several ways. Even when race is examined as a social construct, academic discussions and legal frameworks continue to classify people into racial groups. This ongoing classification sustains race as a key identifier in education, employment, and healthcare institutions. Additionally, racial categories are institutionalized through government policies, census data, and affirmative action programs. While these mechanisms are designed to address inequality, they also reinforce racial distinctions by requiring individuals to identify within predefined groups.

Cultural and historical narratives also play a role in maintaining racial categories. Theories of race often analyze historical injustices such as slavery, colonization, and segregation, highlighting their long-term impacts. While this is crucial for understanding systemic inequities, it also keeps racial distinctions at the forefront of social analysis. Similarly, identity and group solidarity efforts, particularly those emerging from intersectionality and critical race theory, mobilize around racial identity. These movements challenge oppression and reinforce racial categorization by emphasizing the distinct experiences of different racial groups.

Legal and political frameworks contribute to this perpetuation, as critical race theory and related legal studies critique how race is embedded in institutional structures. However, laws designed to combat discrimination often require the maintenance of racial categories to track disparities and enforce protections. Media and public discourse further reinforce racial categorization by shaping perceptions through representation and discussion, even when aiming to challenge stereotypes.

While race is widely acknowledged as a social construct, its persistent use in social, legal, and political contexts sustains its categorization as a defining aspect of human identity.

The relationship between racism, academic studies on race, and the reinforcement of racial categorization forms a Gordian knot—a complex and self-sustaining problem that seems impossible to untangle. This cycle operates through an ongoing paradox: racism as a social and historical force necessitates scholarly analysis, yet the very act of studying race continually reinforces its categorization, making it difficult to dismantle.

At the core of this entanglement is the fact that race, despite being widely recognized as a social construct, has very real material consequences. Systemic inequalities, discrimination, and racial violence all demand academic scrutiny to expose and challenge oppression. However, this necessary analysis also sustains the framework it seeks to critique. By constantly defining, discussing, and measuring racial categories, whether in legal studies, social science research, or activism—academia inadvertently solidifies race as an enduring social reality rather than something that can be thoroughly deconstructed.

Legal and political systems further complicate this knot. Laws addressing racial discrimination require categorization to function; for example, affirmative action, anti-discrimination policies, and demographic data collection all rely on racial labels to track disparities. This reliance reinforces the notion that racial identity is an essential component of social experience, making it difficult to envision a world where race is not a primary category of identity and classification.

Moreover, the persistence of racism ensures the continued need for academic discourse on race. As racial inequalities evolve, new theories and frameworks emerge to analyze them, expanding the study of race while making it increasingly challenging to transcend its categorization. This creates a feedback loop where racial disparities justify further analysis, which in turn institutionalizes racial classification even further.

The Gordian knot of race and academia is particularly challenging because any attempt to "cut through" it risks either ignoring racial injustice or reinforcing racial distinctions. Abandoning racial categories altogether may obscure real disparities while continuing to study race sustains its relevance in ways that make transcending it nearly impossible. The challenge, then, is to find a way to research and address racial inequities without continually reifying the categories that racism initially created.

Academics may be interested in continuing racial categorization for several reasons, ranging from pursuing knowledge and social justice to institutional and professional incentives. While many scholars aim to deconstruct racial hierarchies, the very nature of academic inquiry and its institutional frameworks often reinforce racial categorization rather than dismantle it.

One primary reason is that racial categorization remains essential for analyzing and addressing systemic inequalities. Scholars studying racism, discrimination, and social stratification rely on racial categories to track disparities in wealth, education, healthcare, and criminal justice. Without these categories, measuring racial inequities or developing policies to reduce them would be nearly impossible. If racial disparities persist, academics have a compelling reason to continue studying race as a category.

Additionally, racial identity plays a crucial role in political mobilization and advocacy. Many scholars engaged in critical race theory, ethnic studies, and sociology view their work as part of a broader struggle for racial justice. Maintaining racial categories helps empower marginalized communities by validating their distinct experiences and providing a framework for legal and political action. Eliminating racial categorization too soon could risk erasing evidence of ongoing discrimination.

Beyond the moral and political motivations, there are also institutional and professional incentives for academics to continue studying race. Universities, research institutions, and funding bodies allocate resources to studies that address racial issues. Entire academic disciplines, such as Black studies, Indigenous studies, and Latinx studies, are built around racial identity and its social implications. Scholars working in these fields depend on the continued relevance of racial categorization to sustain research grants, faculty positions, and program funding.

Moreover, the intellectual landscape of academia thrives on expanding theoretical frameworks, and race continues to be a fertile ground for new ideas and debates. Concepts like intersectionality, whiteness studies, and postcolonial theory have developed into established academic disciplines, each offering novel critiques of racial structures. However, these disciplines reinforce racial categorization by continuously analyzing race as a primary axis of social experience.
​
In sum, academics may be interested in continuing racial categorization because it provides a necessary tool for analyzing inequality, supports political activism, sustains academic disciplines, and aligns with professional incentives. While many scholars seek to challenge and deconstruct racial categories, their continued use in research and discourse paradoxically keeps them embedded in social and institutional structures.