What legal scholars mean by 'whiteness as property' and how that concept is used to analyze racial inequality?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Cheryl I. Harris’s phrase “whiteness as property” names a legal-theoretical argument that white racial identity was constructed and protected by law in ways that conferred exclusionary, transferable benefits akin to property rights, and that those legal protections continue to shape racial inequality today [1] [2]. Scholars use the idea as an analytic lens to read decisions, doctrines, and institutions that ratified and reproduced white advantage — from slave-era rules about status and land to twentieth-century zoning and modern affirmative‑action disputes [3] [4] [5].
1. What scholars mean by the phrase: a succinct definition
“Whiteness as property” asserts that whiteness functions like property because it yields use and enjoyment, exclusory control, and legal protection: it gives social and economic privileges, can be defended and enforced through law and violence, and has been treated by courts and statutes as an inheritable social asset rather than a mere descriptive category [6] [7] [8].
2. The historical thesis: how law created a property interest in whiteness
Harris traces the origin of that property-interest to slavery, conquest, and colonial settlement: legal rules that validated only “white” possession, nullified Indigenous title, and structured access to land, labor, and civic membership effectively transformed racial identity into a distributive instrument — a protected status that allocated public and private benefits to whites [3] [9] [4].
3. Mechanisms by which whiteness operated like property
The concept highlights several mechanisms: legal recognition of “settled expectations” favoring whites, exclusionary doctrine and municipal practices (for example, racial zoning and segregation ordinances), and judicial reasoning that insulated those advantages even after overt segregation ended — all of which produced durable, law‑enforced material value attached to whiteness [10] [4] [5].
4. How scholars deploy the idea to analyze cases and doctrines
Legal scholars read canonical cases and contemporary doctrines through the lens of whiteness-as-property to show hidden distributive choices: Harris and followers argue that decisions from Plessy to modern affirmative-action jurisprudence must be understood not only as constitutional or doctrinal engagements but as interventions that preserve or redistribute the property-like benefits of whiteness [3] [5] [1].
5. Empirical applications beyond courtroom doctrine
Researchers have applied the framework to land-use and zoning histories, urban planning, education policy, and the spatial reproduction of advantage, arguing that statutory and administrative regimes — not just headline judicial opinions — have encoded whiteness into the material architecture of housing, schools, and wealth accumulation [4] [11] [12].
6. Critiques, limits, and alternate readings
Critics and cautious readers ask whether the property metaphor overgeneralizes or obscures other axes of power; some scholars extend or refine Harris’s formulation (for example, by situating whiteness in settler colonialism or by rethinking how property theory itself is racialized), while others emphasize empirical variation across time and place and seek clearer criteria for when identity functions as property [9] [8] [13]. The sources show active scholarly debate rather than settled consensus [2].
7. Why the framework matters for policy and litigation
Framing whiteness as property reframes remedies: it makes redistribution, reparative measures, and affirmative action intelligible as responses to a legally produced property interest, rather than as ad hoc preferences; Harris herself argues that confronting the property interest in whiteness is necessary to correct distorted doctrines and to justify redistribution central to racial justice projects [1] [5].
Conclusion
The phrase “whiteness as property” is both a historical claim about how law helped create and protect racial advantage and a critical tool that exposes how legal rules continue to reproduce that advantage; scholars use it to connect doctrinal details to long-term patterns of dispossession and to argue for remedial frameworks that recognize law’s distributive role in creating racial inequality [1] [3] [4].