Whilst we must accept that bias is inevitable, trying to justify our prejudices is just another way of upholding white supremacy

The argument

This argument distinguishes between the existence of bias and the act of justifying it, holding that while some degree of unconscious bias may be an inevitable feature of human cognition, deliberately attempting to justify racial prejudice is a different and indefensible matter — one that ultimately serves to uphold racial hierarchy. Humans, the argument concedes, are prone to ingrained, often unconscious biases shaped by their environment and upbringing; that much is a reality to be acknowledged and worked against. But acknowledging that bias exists is the opposite of endorsing it. To recognise a bias is to identify something to resist; to justify it is to defend and entrench it. The argument holds that when people construct rationalisations for racial prejudice — appealing to statistics, security, culture or supposed group differences to make discrimination seem reasonable — they are not honestly confronting bias but legitimising it. Each such justification provides intellectual cover for treating people unequally on the basis of race, and in doing so reinforces the structures and assumptions of racial hierarchy. Even seemingly pragmatic justifications, on this view, work to normalise the idea that racial discrimination can be acceptable, which is precisely the logic that sustains white supremacy. The effort to justify prejudice thus does the work of upholding it, whatever the intention. From this standpoint, the proper response to inevitable bias is to recognise and counteract it, never to excuse it. Justifying prejudice converts a flaw to be overcome into a principle to be defended, and that move always serves the racial hierarchy it rationalises. Because attempting to justify our prejudices is just another way of upholding white supremacy, this argument holds, racism cannot be justified.

Premises

Counter-arguments

A critic can accept that racism is wrong yet question this argument's specific logic. It slides from the reasonable point that some rationalisations do excuse prejudice to the sweeping claim that any attempt to justify a bias 'always' upholds white supremacy — a leap that is asserted rather than demonstrated. The framing also risks being unfalsifiable: because any reasoning offered against the thesis can be recast as itself upholding the hierarchy it names, the argument forecloses examination rather than winning it. And it can blur explaining or analysing a disparity with endorsing prejudice, so that even good-faith empirical inquiry might be branded as 'upholding supremacy.' One can hold racism unjustifiable while rejecting a framing that shuts down the harder cases.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] Granting that bias exists, the argument slides to a sweeping 'always upholds white supremacy' claim; the leap from some rationalisations to all attempted justifications is asserted, not established. [Rejecting P2] It risks being unfalsifiable — any reasoning offered against the thesis can be recast as itself upholding the hierarchy, which forecloses rather than wins the argument. [Rejecting P3] It can blur explaining or analysing a disparity with endorsing prejudice, so even good-faith inquiry could be branded as upholding supremacy; one can hold racism unjustifiable while rejecting that framing.