US Supreme Court Affirmative Action Decision Renders Court ' Rogue' Or Not Normal

The US Supreme Court recently struck down a legal principle on affirmative action, banning race-conscious admissions programs at Harvard University and the University of North Carolina. This decision follows previous conservative rulings on issues like abortion and voting rights. President Biden disagreed with the ruling and emphasized the importance of student diversity. The Court argued that students should be treated based on their individual experiences rather than race. Many universities have used race as a factor in admissions, aiming to address racial inequities and create a diverse student population. Affirmative action has been supported by higher education institutions, corporations, and military leaders. The ruling may exempt military service academies from its scope. Critics argue that the decision ignores the impact of race and discrimination on individuals and perpetuates racial inequality. Biden recommended considering various factors, including economic background and h Hello and welcome to this episode of the Tire of Loyal and today I want to speak about just two or three developments in the legal world and first among those is the recent decision of the US Supreme Court to strike down a long-standing legal principle on affirmative action. Some time the US Supreme Court struck down the race conscious admissions program at Harvard University and the University of North Carolina effectively prohibiting affirmative action policies long raised to raise the number of black, hispanic and other underrepresented minority students in America. Now this comes on the back of around this time last year when the Sandstorm Court which is now six to three conservative to liberals brought in wide-ranging decisions that struck down Roadview 8 which is the issue around abortion, voting rights etc. etc. The decision which is said to be powered by conservative judges with liberals in dissent the court sided with a group called Students for Fair Admissions founded by anti-affirmative action activist Edward Bloom and its appeal of lower court rulings upholding programs used at the two prestigious schools to foster diverse student population. The vote counts were six to three UNC and six to two against Harvard and in this landmark ruling last year again there were societal implications also speared by conservative justice where as I said the court overturned the 1970 Roadview 8 decision that had legalized abortion nationwide and gun rights. Speaking at the White House the Democratic President Joe Biden said he strongly disagreed with this ruling written by Chief Justice John Roberts and urged colleges not to abandon their commitment to student diversity. Asked by a reporter if this is a rogue court Biden replied this is not a normal court. Roberts wrote that a student must be treated best on his or her experiences as an individual not on the basis of race. Many universities have for too long done just the opposite and in doing so they have concluded wrongly the touchstone of an individual's identity is not challenged, bested, skills built or lessons learned but the color of their skin. Our constitutional history does not tolerate that choice and according to Harvard around 40 of US colleges and universities consider race in some fashion. Bloom's group in lawsuits filed in 2014 accused UNC of discriminating against white and Asian American applicants and Harvard of bias against Asian American applicants. Harvard and UNC have said they used race as only one factor in a host of individualized evaluations for admissions without quotas permissible under previous Supreme Court precedents and that tabbing its consideration would cause a significant drop in enrollment of students from underrepresented groups. Now Harvard and UNC admissions programs cannot be reconciled with the guarantees of the Equal Protection Clause Roberts wrote referring to the constitution provisions. Universities, Roberts added, may still consider a student's personal ACs about how race affected his or her life be it through discrimination, inspiration or otherwise but Roberts said universities may not simply establish through application ACs or other means the regime we hold unlawfully today which is obviously extremely disingenuous because the Chief Justice knows that race and race discrimination are ingrained in the DNA and formation foundation of the republic and of course through the vestiges of slavery and the disadvantages, life disadvantage, intergenerational disadvantages that has caused to present day. An affirmative action was to try to minimize or to mitigate some of those disadvantages that may impact a student even though they were talented such as for example the economic position of the family of the student and how that impacts the student's ability to access education, to access support and so on and so forth and as the university said race was just one factor not the only factor in other words they take into the grades, the ability, the potential of the specific student and make an informed decision that reflects the totality of circumstances of the student's background, ability, talent and potential. Now the affirmative action had withstood Supreme Court scrutiny for decades most recently in a 2016 ruling involving a white student backed by Bloom who sued the University of Texas after being rejected for admission. The Supreme Court has shifted rightward since 2016 and now includes three justices who descended in that case and three appointees by Republican former president who is running again in 2024. Now many institutions of higher education, corporations and military leaders long have backed affirmative action on campuses not simply to remedy racial inequity and expel exclusion in American life but to ensure a talent pool that can bring a range of perspectives to the workplace and the US Armed Forces. Now such a ruling appeared to exempt military service academics from its sweep with Roberts highlighting the potentially distinct interest that military academics may present and noting that the litigation had not addressed the propriety of race based admission systems in that context which is in my respectful opinion is nonsense. Basically what he's saying that it's okay for black and brown folks to go on to serve the military but best taking race as a consideration but it's not okay in other aspects of intellectual life and that in itself is how unfairness and race and racism play out in such settings. Now Biden who is seeking re-election in 2024 recommended that colleges wear a range of factors in admitting students including their economic backgrounds, hardships, at first including racial discrimination. He said, Porter said, discrimination still exists in America. Today's decision doesn't change that, said the president and he said that he believes that US colleges are stronger when their racial diverse and our nation is stronger because they're tapping into the full range of talent in the nation. Now it's important to note that the liberal justice, Katanji Brown Jackson who is the first black woman to serve on the court wrote in a defense, we'd let them eat cake obliviousness. Today the court's majority pulls the ripcord, announces colorblindness for all by legal fiat. A deeming race irrelevant in law does not make it so in life. Jackson did not participate in the Harvard case because of her past affiliation with the university, whilst liberal justice Sonia Sotomayor, the first Hispanic jurist on the court wrote that the decision supports the constitutional guarantee of equal protection and further infringes racial inequality in education. She is quoted as saying today, this court stands in the way and rolls back decades of precedent and momentous progress. Sotomayor added that the court cements its superficial rule of colorblindness as a constitutional principle in an endemically segregated society where race has always mattered and continues to matter. Bloom's group alleged that the adoption by UNC, a public university of an admission policy that was not race neutral violated the constitutional equal protection provision and it contained Harvard, a private university, violated Title VI of a landmark federal law called the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which bars discrimination based on race, color or national origin in federal funded programs activities. Now Harvard's leaders said in a statement they will determine how to preserve consistent with the court's new president their essential values. The University of North Carolina President Peter Hans pledged to follow the law. Now the United States is a nation that long has struggled with issues of race dating back to the history of slavery of black people that ended only after the Civil War. The Civil Rights Movement of the 1950s and 60s and in recent years racial justice protests that followed police killings of black people. In May another poll taken by Reuters where 49% of respondents agree that due to racial discrimination programs such as affirmative action are necessary to create equality whilst 32% disagreed and 19 were unsure according to Reuters. Reuters goes on to say that Taz's ruling did not explicitly say it was a rural landmark president upholding affirmative action. But it reports that the conservative justice Clarence Thomas for his plaque in a concurring opinion wrote that the court's previous Grotto V. Bollinger ruling that colleges could reconsider race as one of the factors in admissions because of the compelling interest of creating a diversity in the student body is for the intent and purposes of a ruled. Now people on both sides of the issue demonstrated outside a court following the ruling and various Republican presidential candidates and lawmakers lowered the decision from embracing merit based admissions whilst Democratic lawmakers called it a roadblock and the drive for racial justice. Bloom celebrated the ruling saying it marks the beginning of the restoration of the colorblind legal confidant that binds together the multiracial multiethnic nation which is of course is complete and contradicts the history and the lived experience as we know them of people of African descent and other groups that endure the remnants and the vestiges of injustices that are rooted in the residues of slavery. So there we are, the U.S. Supreme Court judge 6 to 9 have overturned a seftonite as they did in the Roe v. Wade and gun rights around a year ago and what this does given also the reports of the various suggested impartiality or lack of impartiality due to the donors and alleged gifts enjoyed by some of the judges further brings the reputation really of the court into tatters and I think the answer to the question by the president regarding Aspire Reporter whether this is a rogue court and his answer that this is not a normal court or was that a fake speaks volumes and we shall watch the courtments and see how this evolves and provide updates and so we shall leave it there on this episode of the diary of a lawyer we shall speak again thank you and thanks for watching bye.