SpearIt: 2025 — time to abandon 'people of color'

In his column “Watch your language — a chronicle of today’s improper English” (June 2, TribLive), Cal Thomas describes maladies that plague English speech and writing. This opinion adds to that effort and tries to show why the term “of color” should be retired as a relic of racial subordination.

“Of color” language reinforces racial superiority, despite being the politically correct verbiage of our day. My point is that while we may seek language that sounds sensitive or egalitarian, continued use of the term amounts to a racial setback and should be rejected.

Recent debates about the term “people of color” (POC) have especially veered off course. While some have critiqued use of the phrase, others are trying to entrench it deeper into our vocabulary. For example, last year a New York Times piece described the use of the term “BIPOC,” which adds the prefix “BI” to specify “B” for Black and “I” for indigenous POC. Such expansion of the concept obscures the term’s racist logic of white exclusivity. It misses that “of color” itself is the tool that excludes whites. A critical look at the phrase demonstrates that it’s time we recognize its work in advancing white supremacy.

POC is not a benign racial construct, but a construct of power. The unspoken force behind the terminology is the automatic pitting of color against white, as Wikipedia’s definition makes plain: a POC is “any person who is not considered ‘white.’” Under this definition, whiteness is placed on a conceptual pedestal that transcends the notion of color.

Conceiving whiteness in this way contradicts basic language and logic due to the obvious — white is a color too. In everyday speech, we use white to describe practically anything; even a child with crayons knows that white is a color. Yet when discussing human complexion, the POC moniker effectively flips meaning on its head. Despite that we use white to describe cars, cats or any other object, whites are purely subject when it comes to people. The term supports racist logic of yesteryear, as indicated in the 1850 U.S. Census, which instructed that for one who is “white,” the “color” box should be left blank. This ethnocentrism may have been the norm in the time of slavery but has no place in our 21st-century lexicon.

Using POC to talk about Asians, African-Americans, Latinos and other ethnic minorities may present as civil language, but it continues the dirty work of the “one drop” rule or the principle that one could not be considered white if he had one drop of Black blood. The idea’s perseverance may be due to racial minorities embracing the term, including the influential NAACP, National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. As the product of founders trapped by the language of their day, the name effectively creates a metaphysical gulf between whites and Blacks. This false binary reinscribes language of a racist establishment, where color was identified with slavery, and freedom with whiteness. Such thinking segregated restaurants, drinking fountains and other facilities with words like “coloreds” and “whites.” Today, division and white exclusivity are reinforced every time the phrase POC is uttered.

If we fail to move beyond this trap that was set centuries ago, all will continue to suffer the consequences. Racial minorities will be forced to endure veiled racial oppression while whites remain disabled to disavow it or an identity void of color. Whiteness is kept pure from the taint of color and preserved as the standard by which all other colors contrast. POC language upholds this scheme and keeps those designated as “white” in a class by itself.

To stress, the point of this piece is not that we should stop using colors to describe people. In fact, it is quite the opposite — that every person is some color. Thus, if we intend to use colors to talk about people, then we must include everyone. Acceptance of this fundamental point causes POC to lose all meaning. We have no choice but to retire this term as a means of advancing racial justice and continuing the process of freeing ourselves from supremacist ideology.

SpearIt is a law professor at the University of Pittsburgh.