Equality Reimagined: The Evolution of Conservative Rhetoric on Race and Education in the United States

This thesis examines the evolution of conservative rhetoric surrounding race-conscious education policy from the Reconstruction-era to the present. It argues that while there have been slight shifts in the language used to oppose racial reform over time, the underlying objective of protecting existing racial hierarchies has remained remarkably consistent. Since the Reconstruction-era, conflicts over educational opportunity have repeatedly emerged when racial reform challenged established political and social hierarchies. Following the Civil War, Southern conservatives invoked liberal ideals such as neutrality, fairness, and states' rights to resist racial reform while maintaining the appearance of constitutional legitimacy. In doing so, they established a rhetorical framework that later actors would draw upon to justify opposition to racial progress. Through a historical analysis of legal and political discourse, this study traces how these rhetorical strategies developed across three key periods: the Reconstruction-era, the backlash to Brown v. Board of Education (1954), and contemporary legal challenges to affirmative action culminating in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard (2023). Across these moments, arguments framed as defenses of constitutional order, merit, individual rights, and colorblindness have emerged when racial progress has threatened established power structures. These arguments have repeatedly served to legitimize resistance to racial reform by recasting a deeply racialized political issue in the language of fairness and constitutional principle. By situating modern debates over affirmative action within this longer historical trajectory, this thesis demonstrates that educational inequality did not end with Brown but persisted through new legal and political arguments framed in the language of colorblindness.