There are two different approaches to policy, policy which makes up a huge part of our government in America, colorblindness and color consciousness. The famous quote from the court decision of Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District from Justice Roberts reads, “The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race” (Greenhouse). This statement sprouts from the philosophy of colorblindness. It is the racial ideology that suggests that race has all but disappeared as a factor that shapes the life chances of all Americans. In other words, it suggests that race will disappear simply if we stop seeing race. Sonia Sotomayor had a different way of looking at this. She says, in a different case (Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action) but with still the same principles, “The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to speak openly and candidly on the subject of race, and to apply the Constitution with eyes open to the unfortunate effects of centuries of racial discrimination” (Barnes). One case is looking at integration in schools and the other at affirmative action, but they both have the same background. Sotomayor’s approach is recognizing the systematic oppression of certain racialized groups. Whereas with Robert’s approach he fails to see that not discussing race publicly can still yield racism. In “The Crisis of Race and Raciology” Paul Gilroy says, “This is not a straightforward conflict between a culturally sanctioned public obligation to remember and a private desire to forget the unforgettable” (Gilroy). There is this balance that needs to be achieved for this idea of post-racial society to work. In order for America to be seen as having truly equal opportunities, all races need to be seen as the same; white is just another race, no order. One race needs to not be thought of as the majority or superior, and the word minority needs to lose the negative connotation.