Breaking News
Get 40% Off 0
Is NVDA a 🟢 buy or 🔴 sell? Unlock Now

US Supreme Court's two Black justices clash over affirmative action ruling

Published Jun 29, 2023 05:09PM ET Updated Jun 29, 2023 09:45PM ET
Saved. See Saved Items.
This article has already been saved in your Saved Items
 
© Reuters. FILE PHOTO: Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson testifies during the third day of Senate Judiciary Committee confirmation hearings on her nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court, on Capitol Hill in Washington, U.S., March 23, 2022. REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque/File Photo

By Andrew Chung

(Reuters) -When liberal Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson became the first Black woman to join the U.S. Supreme Court, she was expected to bring a different view on racial matters than Justice Clarence Thomas, its only other Black member and a staunch conservative.

That dispute was front and center on Thursday when the two justices publicly battled in sharply worded, dueling opinions as the court, in a blockbuster decision, effectively ended affirmative action policies in which colleges and universities consider race as a factor in student admissions. Such policies have been used by many schools for decades to boost their numbers of Black and Hispanic students.

Jackson and Thomas, reflecting a deep divide in the United States, diverged on how race must be treated in the law. Jackson promoted its use to reduce entrenched inequalities. Thomas contended that the U.S. Constitution is colorblind.

Thomas wrote a concurring opinion accompanying the ruling that said Jackson's "race-infused world view falls flat at each step." Thomas suggested that instead of treating people as the sum of their experiences and challenges, Jackson myopically focuses on "racial determinism."

Jackson countered that it is Thomas who "demonstrates an obsession with race consciousness."

"Our country has never been colorblind," Jackson wrote in her dissenting opinion, which was joined by the two other liberal justices.

George Mason University law professor Ilya Somin called the exchange "fascinating," noting that "they draw such different conclusions from the same history, even though both agree that Jim Crow (past segregation policies aimed at Black Americans in some states) and slavery were horrible forms of oppression at odds with Founding ideals."

"To some extent, the struggle that's going on is - who speaks for the Black community on this court?" Cornell Law School Professor Michael Dorf said. "Part of the undercurrent in his (Thomas's) response to Justice Jackson is that, 'She doesn't speak for all Black people, and she certainly doesn't speak for me.'"

The ruling - powered by the court's conservative majority and written by Chief Justice John Roberts - held that the Harvard and UNC policies violated the Constitution's 14th Amendment, which promises equal protection under the law. The provision was ratified in 1868 in the aftermath of the American Civil War and the emancipation of Black people who had been enslaved by white people in Southern states.

'OSTRICH-LIKE'

Jackson, who was appointed last year by Democratic President Joe Biden, portrayed the ruling as "ostrich-like," one that would "make things worse," not better.

"The only way out of this morass - for all of us - is to stare at racial disparity unblinkingly, and then do what evidence and experts tell us is required to level the playing field and march forward together, collectively striving to achieve true equality for all Americans," Jackson wrote.

"It is no small irony that the judgment the (court's) majority hands down today will forestall the end of race-based disparities in this country, making the colorblind world the majority wistfully touts much more difficult to accomplish," Jackson added.

Jackson traced the history of racism that persisted from slavery to the present day, preventing Black Americans from gaining wealth and excluding them from opportunities in education and professional life. Jackson noted, for example, that white families' median wealth is eight times that of Black families.

Jackson, 52, said the majority's decision will widen gaps between students and "delay the day that every American has an equal opportunity to thrive, regardless of race."

Thomas, who is 75 and has served on the court since 1991, delivered a defense of colorblindness - that the Constitution prohibits actions that treat minorities differently, regardless of their intent. Much of what Thomas wrote on Thursday was directed at Jackson.

"As she sees things, we are all inexorably trapped in a fundamentally racist society, with the original sin of slavery and the historical subjugation of black Americans still determining our lives today," Thomas wrote.

"The panacea, she counsels, is to unquestioningly accede to the view of elite experts and reallocate society's riches by racial means as necessary to 'level the playing field,' all as judged by racial metrics," Thomas added.

Thomas cited his personal experience in supporting his arguments: "Even in the segregated South where I grew up, individuals were not the sum of their skin color. Then as now, not all disparities are based on race."

In a footnote to her dissent, Jackson responded to Thomas's critique, suggesting that he misconstrued her arguments.

"Justice Thomas ignited too many straw men to list, or fully extinguish," Jackson wrote.

Jackson added that Thomas refuses to see the "elephant in the room" - that race-based disparities continue to impede achievement for a great number of Americans.

US Supreme Court's two Black justices clash over affirmative action ruling
 

Related Articles

Add a Comment

Comment Guidelines

We encourage you to use comments to engage with other users, share your perspective and ask questions of authors and each other. However, in order to maintain the high level of discourse we’ve all come to value and expect, please keep the following criteria in mind:  

  •            Enrich the conversation, don’t trash it.

  •           Stay focused and on track. Only post material that’s relevant to the topic being discussed. 

  •           Be respectful. Even negative opinions can be framed positively and diplomatically. Avoid profanity, slander or personal attacks directed at an author or another user. Racism, sexism and other forms of discrimination will not be tolerated.

  • Use standard writing style. Include punctuation and upper and lower cases. Comments that are written in all caps and contain excessive use of symbols will be removed.
  • NOTE: Spam and/or promotional messages and comments containing links will be removed. Phone numbers, email addresses, links to personal or business websites, Skype/Telegram/WhatsApp etc. addresses (including links to groups) will also be removed; self-promotional material or business-related solicitations or PR (ie, contact me for signals/advice etc.), and/or any other comment that contains personal contact specifcs or advertising will be removed as well. In addition, any of the above-mentioned violations may result in suspension of your account.
  • Doxxing. We do not allow any sharing of private or personal contact or other information about any individual or organization. This will result in immediate suspension of the commentor and his or her account.
  • Don’t monopolize the conversation. We appreciate passion and conviction, but we also strongly believe in giving everyone a chance to air their point of view. Therefore, in addition to civil interaction, we expect commenters to offer their opinions succinctly and thoughtfully, but not so repeatedly that others are annoyed or offended. If we receive complaints about individuals who take over a thread or forum, we reserve the right to ban them from the site, without recourse.
  • Only English comments will be allowed.
  • Any comment you publish, together with your investing.com profile, will be public on investing.com and may be indexed and available through third party search engines, such as Google.

Perpetrators of spam or abuse will be deleted from the site and prohibited from future registration at Investing.com’s discretion.

Write your thoughts here
 
Are you sure you want to delete this chart?
 
Post
Post also to:
 
Replace the attached chart with a new chart ?
1000
Your ability to comment is currently suspended due to negative user reports. Your status will be reviewed by our moderators.
Please wait a minute before you try to comment again.
Thanks for your comment. Please note that all comments are pending until approved by our moderators. It may therefore take some time before it appears on our website.
Comments (4)
Charles Manson
Charles Manson Jun 30, 2023 9:48AM ET
Saved. See Saved Items.
This comment has already been saved in your Saved Items
Just in ... Biden's Family were Slave Owners .... https://www.businessinsider.com/genealogist-finds-evidence-that-biden-ancestors-owned-slaves-politico-2021-9 . Could not find anything on Big Don. Tre, you find anything yet?
Charles Manson
Charles Manson Jun 30, 2023 9:42AM ET
Saved. See Saved Items.
This comment has already been saved in your Saved Items
Tre, What is WOKE?
Adrian White
Adrian White Jun 30, 2023 9:42AM ET
Saved. See Saved Items.
This comment has already been saved in your Saved Items
Rufus, since the Extreme Right has more or less misappropriated the term and changed it into a negative catch-all for anything they don't agree with, you would seem to be someone who could answer your own question.
Mark Jannetty
Mark Jannetty Jun 30, 2023 8:19AM ET
Saved. See Saved Items.
This comment has already been saved in your Saved Items
it's good to see our courts ruling in favor of the constitution and equal rights
Joe Rizzuto
Joe Rizzuto Jun 29, 2023 8:50PM ET
Saved. See Saved Items.
This comment has already been saved in your Saved Items
one question katanji, can you please define a woman for me?
Tre Hsi
Tre Hsi Jun 29, 2023 8:50PM ET
Saved. See Saved Items.
This comment has already been saved in your Saved Items
right after all the MAGA people trying to define what is woke....
 
Are you sure you want to delete this chart?
 
Post
 
Replace the attached chart with a new chart ?
1000
Your ability to comment is currently suspended due to negative user reports. Your status will be reviewed by our moderators.
Please wait a minute before you try to comment again.
Add Chart to Comment
Confirm Block

Are you sure you want to block %USER_NAME%?

By doing so, you and %USER_NAME% will not be able to see any of each other's Investing.com's posts.

%USER_NAME% was successfully added to your Block List

Since you’ve just unblocked this person, you must wait 48 hours before renewing the block.

Report this comment

I feel that this comment is:

Comment flagged

Thank You!

Your report has been sent to our moderators for review
Continue with Google
or
Sign up with Email