The US Supreme Court seems poised to end racial segregation

Conservative justices on the U.S. Supreme Court hinted that they could overturn precedents that enshrined racial segregation as a factor in admissions to the nation’s colleges and universities, during the first hearing to discuss two cases in which plaintiffs of the actions ask for the destruction of “affirmative action.”Affirmative action), creator of “Ethnic-Awareness Enrollment Programs.”

A lawsuit challenges a University of North Carolina program on the grounds that it privileges black and Latino students over whites and Asians. The other lawsuit challenges Harvard University’s program, which it says harms Asian students.

In addition to beneficiary students, this decision will affect all institutions of higher education seeking to promote diversity on their campuses. The court’s conservative majority thinks the pursuit of diversity is not a sufficient reason to allow racial preferences at the nation’s colleges and universities, according to the newspaper. The Washington Post And The New York Times.

The ministers had some questions for lawyers on both sides, particularly as they asked defenders of the universities and the state, “How long?” – Or how long will racial quotas last?

Ministers recalled the 2003 decision Crater v. Bollinger, in which then-minister Sandra Day O’Connor wrote that racial quotas would not be needed in 25 years. Minister Amy Barrett asked university lawyers if they would return to court to defend the program if it was extended in the 1940s. Chief Justice John Roberts said: “I don’t see how you can say that this scheme will end one day.”

As a recent precedent from 2016, the Supreme Court decided to uphold the University of Texas’ race-sensitive admissions program, arguing that academic diversity has an undeniable interest that justifies taking race into account as a factor in many of the decision-making processes. Enrollment Former minister Anthony Kennedy noted that courts should give universities substantial, but not total, leeway to establish their admissions programs.

Ministers discussed with advocates how broad the decision should be and what it means for the nation’s top universities, where relying solely on good grades and tests can lead to a dramatic reduction in the presence of blacks and Latinos in your student body.

Roberts told Harvard attorney Seth Waxman that he was concerned about a system where a student’s best chances of admission are based solely on the color of their skin. Waxman responded that being black, Latino, or Asian is a factor that carries a certain amount of weight in the equation, as is being an oboe player, which is required by a university band. In fact, other factors play a role, such as students excelling in certain sports.

Conservative minister Clarence Thomas, who, despite being black, has been a consistent critic of race-conscious politics, has made it clear that he rejects the goal of racial diversity in the student body. “I’ve heard the word diversity many times, but I don’t know what it means.” When the lawyer began to explain, he cut him off: “I don’t care, because I have heard similar arguments in favor of secession.”

Secretary Samuel Alito said the racial quota program was a win-lose game: “Any advantage that automatically goes to one student is a disadvantage to another,” he said. “It’s like giving some people a few meters head start in a race,” he added.

Another chain
Three liberal justices of the Supreme Court defended racial quotas. Secretary Sonia Sotomayor argued that without them, black and Latino students start the race Alito cited several meters earlier.

“If you’re black, you’ve gone to under-resourced schools, with unqualified teachers like in other schools, you’re constantly discriminated against, you’re from a under-resourced family, you’re seen as a student with less academic ability. Universities evaluate all these factors to put students on an equal footing,” he said. said.

Justice Katanji Brown Jackson, the court’s first black woman, said, “The university can take into account other factors and personal characteristics of students in evaluations, but if race is not considered, it has the potential to cause more problems. It’s more of an equal protection issue than it really is a solution.”

He addresses the plaintiffs’ contention that the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution’s 14th Amendment is colorblind, as it applies to the public University of North Carolina. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits racial discrimination, exclusion, or denial of benefits by any program or activity that receives applicable federal financial aid to Harvard.

Minister Elena Kagan said she is worried about a “sharp decline in minority enrollment” if the court decides to abolish racial quotas in higher education. “Universities are the creators of leadership in our society,” he said. And he told the lawyers, “If a minister wants to hire a diverse range of aides, with racial issues in mind, can he?”

According to the papers, he was specifically referring to Conservative minister Brett Kavanagh, who is credited with hiring one of the most diverse teams at court: only three of the 20 aides he has hired are white.

Newspapers point to “a paradoxical note” in the vanishing possibility of the Supreme Court’s racial quotas rejecting the diversity argument: With four women, two blacks and one Latina, it is the most diverse court in history, at least for measures of these demographic characteristics.

The lawsuit, filed by Asian American students, disputes the fact that they were selected based on subjective factors — not based on school performance or tests they do well. Asians have the least number of vacancies and are ranked based on personal characteristics such as charisma, friendliness, courage, honesty and empathy.