Forthcoming in The Routledge Handbook to Epistemic Injustice 1 Epistemic Injustice and the Philosophy of Race Luvell Anderson Introduction The Black Lives Matter movement (BLM) emerged recently in the U.S. in response to what many view as the continued use of state-sanctioned violence against Black bodies and the impunity with which state agents operate. It has been noted that police killed more than 100 unarmed Black people in the U.S. during 2014 alone (Unarmed Victims, 2015). Also, the Washington Post reported that “blacks were killed at three times the rate of whites or other minorities” (Kindy, 2015). It is not surprising then that communities who find themselves disproportionate victims of such violence would respond in protest. For many, the meaning of the phrase “Black Lives Matter” is quite clear. There is an implicit “too” attached to the end of the phrase so that it should read “Black lives matter, too!” We can call this an inclusive reading. A central message of the movement is that we as a society have historically treated Black lives as if they are valueless and expendable, and that this should no longer be the case. Not everyone interprets the phrase in this way, however. A common retort to “Black lives matter” is “All lives matter,” expressing the idea that by singling out Black lives the former phrase represents a devaluing of non-Black lives. Thus, the elliptical element in the phrase is more like “Only Black lives matter.” We might call this an exclusive reading. For instance, we find this sentiment expressed in a column for conservative website Townhall. The author, Bill Murchison, contrasts the “morally incontestable claim” that “all lives matter,” with what he says is pushed by BLM and the media as the real issue, i.e. “Black Lives Matter” (Murchison, 2015). The title of the article, “Do “All Lives Matter” or Not?” further reinforces the notion that the BLM slogan is exclusively about Black lives and a dismissal of all others. Murchison and his ilk could very well be part of a propagandizing conspiracy to undermine any potential effectiveness of the BLM movement, and so could be regarded as disingenuously expressing moral objections. 1 But it seems clear that many ordinary U.S. citizens sincerely share the same sentiment. 2 That is, many ordinary citizens are inclined to attribute an exclusive reading to “Black Lives Matter.” One could say that this is simply a misreading, perhaps an uncharitable one. I think the proper response goes deeper than this, however. I want to argue that the misreading wrongs the protestors in their capacity as knowers, a phenomenon that has been referred to as epistemic injustice. In this particular case, there is a gap in the collective interpretive resources that unjustly disadvantages the protestors” ability to express themselves intelligibly, i.e. what is called a hermeneutical injustice. We find plenty of examples of this phenomenon, for instance,