In this episode of Justice ReDesigned, Judge Steven C. Teske dismantles one of the most seductive ideas in modern political discourse: neutrality.

Colorblind policies are often marketed as fair and balanced. Teske argues they are neither.

Drawing on Supreme Court precedent and institutional history, he explains why neutrality is not the absence of values — it is a choice about what to see, what to ignore, and who bears the cost of that blindness.

This episode examines:

* Why “neutral in form” policies can perpetuate inequality in practice

* How civil rights law has never required blindness to systemic harm

* The economic research showing that effective DEI strategies increase innovation and profitability

* Why abandoning inclusion in the name of neutrality may impose a long-term “Homogeneity Tax” on institutions

Neutrality may feel safe.

But safety is not the same as justice — and it is not the same as competitiveness.

Sometimes what we call neutrality is simply regression dressed up as restraint.

Thanks for reading Justice ReDesigned! This post is public so feel free to share it.

Get full access to Justice ReDesigned at steventeske.substack.com/subscribe