There is a curious passage in W.E.B. Du Bois’ 1903 masterpiece, The Souls of Black Folk, that tries to capture the zeitgeist of those closing decades of the 19th century that ended Reconstruction and gave birth to Jim Crow. Reflecting on the epochal defeat of our country’s post-Civil War experiment in Black emancipation and multiracial democracy, Du Bois characterizes the era as “the psychological moment when the nation was a little ashamed of having bestowed so much sentiment on Negroes, and was concentrating its energies on Dollars.”
I have taught Souls every year of my career as a professor of African American Studies. Still, I confess I never truly grasped the enduring significance of Du Bois’ insistence on this peculiar description. Reading it amidst our era’s rampant recriminations against “identity politics,” “diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI),” and “wokeness,” as well as the backlash against “Black Lives Matter” and police reform, it is difficult to avoid the force of Du Bois’ insight: Like with the demise of Reconstruction, the struggle over shame is key to understanding the reactionary politics that we see today in the post-BLM era.
The rhetoric of racial reaction, to paraphrase economist Albert O. Hirschman, has successfully spread this debilitating emotion. In the aftermath of George Floyd’s murder in 2020, for instance, support for Black Lives Matter soared to historic heights in polling and protest participation. Shortly thereafter, according to leading Pew Research Center surveys, public support—especially among white Americans and Republicans—fell precipitously as narratives and media coverage from the right reframed the movement. Early portrayals often treated antiracist activism as a disruptive but long overdue “reckoning” with how racial stigma promotes police impunity or makes the citizenry tolerate enduring, intergenerational injustices like inner-city poverty. Now that the rhetoric of reaction is ascendent, leading narratives dramatize the movement as divisive, dangerous, and corrupt.
Looming over this data is the ubiquitous gender gap in American politics. While women have historically been, especially during the Reconstruction era, advocates and underappreciated drivers of change and support, growing gender divisions structure public opinion. A March 2025 NBC News poll reports that among women ages 18 to 49, 67% say DEI programs should continue, while only 40% of men in the age bracket say the same.
We are living through another of these “psychological moments”—a time when much of the nation is recoiling in unwarranted shame or even resentment at the moral obligation to repair, remember, and reimagine. What once felt like a shared reckoning has, for many, become a source of fatigue or suspicion—a sobering reminder of how quickly a moral awakening can be reframed as a shameful mistake.
Yet, this shame is not simply a private emotion. It is the result of a political strategy, one cultivated to sap the confidence and conviction of those who dared to be outraged about racial injustice, or thought that disruption and solidarity could overcome paralysis and fear. It is akin to the shame that followed Reconstruction, when the project of multiracial democracy was denounced as naïve, corrupt, and unnatural—not simply because it had failed on its own terms, but because of who was involved and what it threatened to upend.
To understand our own moment’s rhetoric of race politics, we must trace an ignoble inheritance passed down from the enemies of Reconstruction to the present. These so-called “Redeemers,” as white conservative Democrats anointed their movement in the postbellum era, cast themselves as gallant saviors of a fallen South, determined to rescue their region from the sinful empowerment of formerly enslaved people, federal intervention, and the democratic possibilities unleashed by Reconstruction. With a deep investment in racial hierarchy and a romanticized vision of the antebellum order, they cloaked their counter-revolution in the language of salvation, insisting they were “redeeming” their states from what they framed as the chaos, corruption, and illegitimate imposition of “Negro rule.”
In truth, the Redeemers waged a campaign of violent reassertion indifferent to injustice—past or present. Theirs was a restorationist project carried by terroristic violence, voter suppression and government usurpation, and the deliberate dismantling of government institutions like the Freedmen’s Bureau and public schools. “Redemption” became a euphemism for the suffocation of multiracial democracy in its infancy. Their rhetoric provided a rough draft for what Du Bois would later call “the propaganda of history”: the collective distortion of the past in textbooks, scholarship, popular culture, and memorials into a “convenient fairy tale.”
There are three key elements of the Redemptionist reaction that especially resonate in the present. First and foremost, the rhetoric of their movement insisted that racial equality is an inherently foolish and futile pursuit due to the intractable incompetence and inferiority of people of African descent wherever they are found on the globe. In an 1867 address to Congress, President Andrew Johnson proclaimed that “Negroes have shown less capacity for government than any other race of people…wherever they have been left to their own devices they have shown a constant tendency to relapse into barbarism.” Supreme Court Justice Joseph McKenna, in the majority opinion for Williams v. Mississippi, an 1898 ruling that narrowed the scope of anti-discrimination claims to the explicit text of law, declared that the Negro race “by reason of its previous condition of servitude and dependencies,” has “acquired or accentuated” certain habits, temperaments, and characteristics that mark them separate from whites in their carelessness, dishonesty, docility, and lack of “forethought.” Popularly, the banner of Black incompetence was carried by demeaning depictions in material and theatrical culture, as well as in D.W. Griffith’s racist epic film, The Birth of a Nation (1915), which portrayed Reconstruction-era Black legislators as “comically” idiotic, necessitating the violent restoration of white rule.
This rhetoric is, unfortunately, resonant with today’s attacks on “DEI,” with critics insisting that efforts to recruit, incorporate, and promote Black talent in higher education, the military, and in many workplaces amount to the dangerous promotion of incompetence. President Donald Trump, for example, immediately and falsely blamed a horrific Washington, D.C. plane crash on DEI hiring at the Federal Aviation Administration, despite no supporting evidence and overwhelming testimony to the contrary from aviation officials. Meanwhile, figures like Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth have made attacking and dismantling DEI a large part of their public persona, while ignoring legitimate concerns about their unprecedented lack of qualifications for their own roles. High-profile Black leaders like former Harvard president Claudine Gay or former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Charles Q. Brown, Jr., have been targeted for defamation and harassment to drive them out of their positions, similarly to Black elected officials and business leaders in the Reconstruction era. The consequence of these campaigns is a revival, from the highest offices of the land, of the Redemptionist lie that common sense should treat Black people as presumptively unfit for positions of authority or public trust. Those who believe otherwise, then, are caricatured as foolish and sentimental.
These arguments frequently draw their legitimacy from pseudoscientific racism and the related idea of the backwardness of African diasporic peoples—and expand much further than politics. From Silicon Valley to the media landscape, people in positions of power are reintroducing theories of racial hierarchy under the guise of defending “free inquiry” or “realism.” As the Scientific American and The Guardian have documented, a network of actors is actively working to launder eugenics-era thought into legitimacy, cloaked in appeals to genetic science, meritocracy, and market rationality. From Tucker Carlson’s monologues, to Elon Musk’s offhand remarks about intelligence and heredity, to the administration’s executive order against teaching the social construction of “race,” a new generation of elites is reanimating the old canard that racial inequality is not the legacy of injustice but the reflection of the fundamental inequality of natural “racial” kinds.
Second, we are encouraged to feel shame because of the perversity of consequences. Whatever the good intentions of the last decade or so of racial progressivism, we are told, we have only exacerbated crime, deepened distrust, and stood in the way of economic rationality. Take, for example, the so-called “Ferguson Effect,” the notion that protests against police brutality demoralize police and exacerbate crime. Just as the reactionary historiography of Reconstruction, led by William Dunning, cast Reconstruction as a misguided, radical experiment in Black suffrage and governance, the Ferguson effect casts protest movements like Black Lives Matter as accelerants of violence and civic decay. Both assert a kind of intuitive “common sense” that masks deep ideological anxieties. The Dunning historians appealed to the logic of natural racial hierarchy, while proponents of the Ferguson effect draw on a racialized sense of law and order where public safety is presumed to hang precariously on police exercising sweeping authority and compelling broad deference and admiration. In both cases, dissenting scholars have had to work uphill to replace myth with measurement. As social scientists like David Pyrooz and Richard Rosenfeld have shown, the Ferguson effect—when tested across dozens of major cities—fails to reveal a coherent national trend. Rigorous studies consistently find that changes in policing behavior, while real in some places, did not drive national crime patterns, and where proactive policing declined, crime often did not rise at all.
Importantly, the best accounts have not only rejected the broad claims of de-policing as a driver of crime but have also emphasized the dangers of clinging to these narratives. The fact that cities like Boston and Baltimore are currently experiencing record homicide declines undercut the notion of a generalized crime wave and affirm something protestors proclaimed: that differences in police approaches matter immensely.
Another pillar of Redemptionist rhetoric is the feminization of progressive politics. From Reconstruction to the present, reactionary voices have sometimes attempted to discredit movements for racial justice by portraying their advocates—especially white women—as naïve, sentimental, meddling, and destabilizing. During the postbellum years, white female abolitionists and teachers working with freedpeople were mocked as “nigger schoolmarms,” accused of spreading delusion and disorder, and often singled out in violent retributions. These women played a vital role in founding schools, advocating suffrage, and supporting Black citizenship, but were often cast by their critics as insubordinate, hysterical, or morally corrupting. This gendered stigma echoed through how Reconstruction itself was characterized—less a serious project of transitional justice and constitutional refounding than a crusade driven by feminine sentimentality run amok. As recent historians have shown, many white women brought genuine moral and pedagogical commitments to the work of abolition and Reconstruction, but navigated a public discourse that portrayed their efforts as irrational and disruptive. Their work, particularly in the South, became one of the earliest battlegrounds where political femininity was equated with moral overreach, excess, and social breakdown.
This trope has only persisted today as figures like Christopher Rufo and other conservative intellectuals have revived a strikingly similar line of attack. Writing in City Journal, National Post, and across the digital right, they framed “wokeness” and progressive racial discourse as symptoms of what they call the “feminization of American culture.” The rise of DEI and new norms around pedagogy, student activism, and campus protest culture is attributed to a dangerous excess of “feminine” traits—emotionality, overprotection, inclusivity, and moralistic judgment. This narrative not only ridicules the intellectual and political work of women but also seeks to cast entire movements for justice as self-indulgent and unserious. It is an old trick: to attribute the presence of injustice not to the powerful who perpetuate it, but to the women and marginalized people who criticize it. What makes this rhetoric particularly potent is that it insists on old gender hierarchies as the norm.
To understand this history is not merely to lament its repetition, but to arm ourselves with clarity. The reemergence of scientific racism, the delegitimization of Black leadership and achievement, the panic over DEI and protest, the feminization of justice—are not isolated phenomena. They are part of a coherent tradition of backlash, one that knows how to speak the language of realism and reform while advancing the cause of domination. The task, then, is not simply to refute the lies with better data, though that matters. It is to refuse the shame that seeks to make us forget what we glimpsed, however briefly, in the streets in 2020 and beyond: the possibility that this country might confront how far it is from the scale and scope of its promises, and seize upon that reckoning to remake itself.
We will either find a way to remember that aspiration without apology. Or, we will watch another moment where the tentative promise of reconstruction curdles and congeals into something genuinely worthy of our collective shame.
Terry is the John L. Loeb Associate Professor of the Social Sciences at Harvard University and the co-director of the Institute on Policing, Incarceration, and Public Safety at the Hutchins Center for African and African American Research. His forthcoming book is Shattered Dreams, Infinite Hope: A Tragic Vision of the Civil Rights Movement
This project was created in partnership with the Center for Policing Equity.