Supreme Court ends affirmative action (2023)

This transcript was created using speech recognition software. Although it has been reviewed by a human writer, it may contain errors. Please review the audio of the episode before citing this recording, and email transcripts@nytimes.com if you have any questions.

I'm Katrin Benhold from The New York Times, and this is The Daily.

[play music]

On Thursday, the Supreme Court struck down affirmative action, overturning decades of precedent. American colleges and universities will no longer be able to use race as a factor in the admissions process. Today, our colleague Adam Liptak talks about the verdict and what it means for American society.

Today is Friday, June 30.

Another very successful term in the Supreme Court for Adam. Today's decision is one of the biggest in years. Tell us this sentence.

The Supreme Court has rejected affirmative action in higher education, or more accurately called race-conscious admissions programs illegal. The pitch played as we have seen many times, a typical 6-3 draw. All six Republican appointees have a majority, and all three Democratic appointees are dissenting.

It's a huge decision, both in terms of range and in terms of physical performance. They wrote more than 200 pages, and six different judges wrote their opinions. This is a significant rejection of decades of important precedent. Courts, meanwhile, have sometimes allowed college and university administrators to consider race, at least in admissions essays.

Remind me of the details of the case.

It was brought forward by a group called Students for Fair Admissions, which said it represented students disadvantaged in the admissions programs at Harvard and UNC. At Harvard, they argue in particular that Asian-American students are treated negatively in the elite institution's admissions program. The suit essentially accused affirmative action of being discriminatory and prosecuted it as a violation of the Constitution's Equal Protection Clause.

So this is a big deal, overturning decades of precedent. Adam, can you remind us of the legal history behind all of this?

Affirmation in higher education has been justified since 1978, so it may come as a surprise to people for reasons that may not be the most obvious. Throughout, the Supreme Court has said that the goal of affirmative action is not to correct the injustices suffered by blacks and other minorities throughout our nation's history through slavery, Jim Crow laws, and systemic racism. That is not a reason to do it.

The court said affirmative action was justified by educational diversity, the idea that students learn best from each other by being with other students from different backgrounds, including students of different races.

But that used to be some sort of earlier bug fix, right? Was there a time when affirmative action was originally justified on these grounds?

When it was first implemented, that was the political rationale for it, and many people in the civil rights era thought that was what was needed. But when the policy was challenged and taken to the Supreme Court, the court said that current hospitalization practices were not sufficiently linked to historical errors. A single 1978 Justices opinion and a 2003 Supreme Court opinion both declared that educational diversity is so important that it can and should be the only reason to consider race in admissions decisions.

Diversity in education thus benefits all students, not just minority students, the hitherto legal basis for positive discrimination. What is the rationale for the majority of judges today overturning this decision?

Chief Justice John Roberts, speaking on behalf of the six justices, said that diversity in education was a laudable goal, but added that to be a sufficient basis for affirmative action, it must be subject to strict judicial scrutiny to ensure that it does that. . really do. He said it is impossible to measure when educational diversity will be achieved, and since it cannot be measured, it cannot meet that kind of judicial review because it is not known when it will be achieved.

He added that racial concessions can have a negative impact because by promoting certain groups other groups are affected, and that racial concessions are fraught with stereotypes. The idea, he said, is that if educational diversity shows that all black students share the same views, then it is unfair to individual black students.

Interestingly, if you explicitly acknowledge that diversity in education is a laudable goal, what difference can universities make if they want to achieve it?

So we've now eliminated racially conscious concessions, you can't help members of historically disadvantaged minorities. This is no longer acceptable, although it was one of many factors.

But more importantly, said Chief Justice Roberts, you can consider race in a different way, e.g. in an admissions essay, if a student wants to write individually that they have overcome adversity with racial discrimination, or is trying to celebrate their backgrounds: racial or ethnic origins are acceptable as they are based on individual students with courage or resilience, or students who striving to understand their heritage. It's alright. But it cannot be based on checking a box and saying that someone in a certain group gets an advantage.

So could racetracks as we know them be made illegal?

Yes, that seems to be the message of this resolution. And Chief Justice Roberts believes that, at least in the admissions process, aiming to achieve some representation of a particular group, or what he called racial balance, seems illegal. Now, we may still have a pretty good idea of ​​what the admitted student body looks like, but it is illegal to treat race as race and race as race in the admissions process.

Funny, but you say that, for example, in admissions assignments, students can talk about their race and how it has shaped their lives. So, as an admissions officer, now you won't have a race chart, but you can read the article to decode the person's race. But can you consider it now? Or are you just thinking about what qualities would make you a good candidate?

This is a fine and subtle question. I think what the chief justice would say is if you stop where you say, wait a minute, this person is black, this person is Hispanic, this person is Asian, and you don't put it in a personal context. , then you are violating the decision. But if what you're doing is trying to get a complete picture of the applicant, even with reference to context and context, that's perfectly acceptable. That said, this means that there will be some pretty narrow and stark differences in the life of an admissions officer to determine which side you're on.

So in some ways this new policy appears to be very difficult to control because it is a very nuanced distinction and requires the brains of the admissions officers.

This is real. If admissions officers are determined to maintain a diverse student body in a generally serious sense, they are likely to find ways to cut corners and possibly even cheat. But they will be watched by groups hostile to racial concessions and could face lawsuits if there are closed questions.

So some admissions officers try to follow the law because it is the law. Second, others prone to shortcuts may fear lawsuits. Third, there will be some degree of cheating by opponents of affirmative action.

Does Robert's decision show that you can use categories other than race? Me, I don't know, can I use zip code, income level as a proxy?

As for whether proxies can be used, he said you can't do indirectly what you can't do directly, but other factors are likely to drive racial diversity, such as socioeconomic factors or enrollment of top students in statewide high schools, which tend to be demographically Uneven, this would give some minorities better opportunities or influence, but that kind of proxy representation can still be fine.

Is this the case with all universities and other educational institutions in the country now?

This applies to all constitutionally bound public universities. This applies to almost all private universities. If you accept federal funds, you must comply with federal civil rights laws that are said to mirror the Equal Protection Clause. As such, it applies to almost all higher education institutions with one important exception.

Chief Justice Roberts said the court did not discuss whether military academies could accept racially motivated admissions. To say they have special concerns obviously refers to military academies that train leaders of various armed forces. For reasons of force cohesion and morale, they hope to have a diverse team of officers at the same time. In front of a diverse group. Combat

So it's okay to actively promote diversity in the military, but not in higher education. What is the constitutional basis for this exception?

So the umpire didn't say it didn't matter, just that they didn't make a decision. But you could say that the difference in the constitution is what is the compelling interest? A strong interest in national security may be enough to create different rules for military academies than Harvard.

Okay, so from that perspective, Chief Justice Roberts is basically implementing far-reaching changes for American society. What did the liberal justices have to say in their dissent?

Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote the main dissent. She was joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson. In an unusual move, the first in years, Justice Sotomayor summarized her dissent with the court and made a few points, but basically said that the majority of American history, blind to why we have the Equal Protection Clause, honors the legacy of Brown v. Board of Education, the landmark decision to desegregate public schools. He said it is entirely appropriate to work to ensure that historically disadvantaged minorities have the opportunity to attend elite institutions and succeed in mainstream American life.

So she's saying that the constitutional promise, the promise of equal protection, is being ignored here?

Okay. She has a different view of equal protection than the Chief Justice. The chief justice simply said that the equal protection clause meant that the government had to be color blind. Justice Sotomayor said the Equal Protection Clause existed for a reason. There he was, fighting for the end of slavery after the Civil War, with the goal of bringing black Americans, especially black Americans, into normal American life, and he was extremely sensitive and race-conscious, a reality that admissions officers accepted as appropriate considerations.

She said society is not colorblind, so college admissions should not be colorblind.

Yes that is correct.

[play music]

So basically they're saying that whatever legal basis Roberts is proposing here, it's not going to work well. We live in a country of racial inequality and this will only further exacerbate racial inequality in America.

Well, there is no doubt that they are right, at elite institutions the result of this decision will be less blacks, less Hispanics, more Asians, more whites on campus and there are many reasons for this decision. Something to think about, and one that will reshape the educational experience for countless American students.

We will be right back.

So Adam, affirmative action is gone. This is the law of the land today, and college classes entering the fall of 2024 will reflect this new world. What will the new world look like?

Well, we know what that's going to look like because several states have passed affirmative action bans over the past few decades. Two notable examples are Michigan, which dismantled affirmative action through state ballot initiatives decades ago, and Michigan, which dismantled affirmative action in 2006, with mixed and slightly different experiences. .

In California's public university system, for example, overall enrollment of black students fell after the state's ban. Their numbers have increased over time, but that's after California spent more than $500 million on outreach programs for underserved minority students. The UC system now includes many different types of schools, and some of the more elite institutions, such as UC Berkeley, have struggled to maintain student diversity.

You see something similar in Michigan, where its flagship university, the University of Michigan-Ann Arbor, has struggled to maintain diversity, especially among black students. Now, the state is about 14 percent black and only 4 percent enrolled at the University of Michigan, despite similar efforts in Michigan and California, where resources are being poured into recruiting, outreach and more.

So it's a bit mixed. But at least in the California case, there seems to be some indication that when institutions choose to, they can achieve some diversity even without affirmative action.

It's a tricky question, and it also depends not only on recruitment and promotion, but also on whether you indirectly use other types of means to achieve the goals that affirmative action directly achieves. Whether you look at socio-economic factors like trying to attract students from all the different types of high schools, etc. Of course, it all depends on whether the state or the university system agrees that they need to do that sort of thing first, that racial diversity is their top priority .

Not all states spend hundreds of millions of dollars on outreach like California does. So the implementation of this across the country will vary greatly.

So, Adam, are we going to see this ripple effect in American society beyond college campuses?

Well, one thing that is likely to happen, as far as we know, is that elite higher education is an important path to success in American society. If the pipeline of highly educated minority students shrinks, you may see fewer minorities in leadership positions across America. So this can have a big knock-on effect. There's also this kind of, what do you call it, education session in the courthouse that, if people will listen, sends the message that racism is over and you don't have to worry about that. All other parts of American society, especially employers, can hear the message.

So does the court's decision somehow set a new social norm and allow employers and other institutions to stop caring about racial diversity?

Okay It's like you're seeing a halt to the diversity, equity and inclusion efforts of big corporations that have become politically controversial.

So what would Americans say if this trend really spread to every corner of American society? Do we feel it?

It really depends on how you phrase the question. By and large, people are in favor of diversity. People are against quotas. Different studies will give you different results. Polls on the New York Times website related to these particular decisions found that 69 percent to 74 percent said colleges and universities should not be allowed to use race as a factor in admissions.

Wow.

So if you ask that, the vast majority say that, 58%, 60% of Democrats. So it's not very polarized politically. Studies have shown that members of minority groups are uncomfortable with some forms of affirmative action. Another data point is that just a few years ago, California tried to bring back affirmative action, the bluest states you'll find, and it failed, and by a significant number of people.

Adam, I guess the other question is, even if 7 out of 10 Americans oppose affirmative action, will they like the impact of this ruling?

So I think it's two levels of speculation, but it's too early. One is that it will take some time to know exactly how this has been implemented and how admissions officers have responded, and whether the racial element of the decision's retention will have a significant impact. Then we have to see how people feel when something happens.

So we don't know how it's going to play out and what the outcome is going to be, but whatever our answer is, it's going to tell us a lot about where society is and where America is in this race.

it is true. American society appears to be at a racist crossroads, having gone through the Black Lives Matter movement and the response to what appears to be deep systemic racism in police response when encountering black youth, and then the 1619 Project Resist , opposes critical race theory. This is a large and growing public debate, a raging one, and this new decision will help us all focus on what American society must do to ensure that people who have suffered the injustices of history have a fair chance to compete in modern society. .

I think in a way it all depends on what you think the goal of affirmative action is. Is it about righting past wrongs, working toward racial equality, or something else?

Another way to ask the question is: What was the purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment, which required equal protection, passed after the Civil War? Is this meant to achieve colorblindness where the government treats everyone equally, or to address the reality of catastrophic and horrific mistreatment of enslaved people in this country? Does the state owe a special debt to this group of people? Is this what the people who drafted and passed the Fourteenth Amendment intended? At the same time, I think we all hope that one day people will not need help.

[play music]

In 2003, when the court decided the last major affirmative action case, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor said she expected 25 years from now, in 2028, that we would need affirmative action. The question is, are we there yet? Most say yes, nay-sayers vehemently say no.

Adam, thank you very much.

So.

Shortly after the Supreme Court's ruling on affirmative action, President Biden condemned the measure.

Discrimination still exists in the United States. Today's decision does not change that. It is a simple fact.

He said he still believes in the need for racial diversity and encouraged colleges and universities to find other ways to make it happen.

We cannot allow this decision to be final. While the court can rule, it cannot change the US position. America is an idea, an idea unique in the world. An idea of ​​hope and possibility, opportunity, giving everyone a fair chance and leaving no one behind. We never really got there, but we never got away from it either.

We will be right back.

[play music]

Here's what you need to know today.

[lens]

In France, a police officer who shot a teenage driver earlier this week has been charged with manslaughter. The death of Nahel M, a 17-year-old French national of North African descent, sparked violent protests in more than a dozen cities.

[Synge]

Protesters have called for an end to French police brutality, burning cars and clashes with police, according to French authorities. About 180 people were arrested and 170 police officers were injured. It was unclear whether the officer's arrest would quell widespread anger against the police that has been brewing for years in France's poorest urban neighborhoods.

In the United States, dangerous temperatures are expected throughout the South. The heat index is expected to reach 120 degrees in many areas and remain high throughout the weekend.

Today's episode is produced by Rob Szypko, Asthaa Chaturvedi and Alexandra Leigh Young, with assistance from Rachelle Bonja. It was edited by Lexi Diao, Paige Cowett and Lisa Chow. Features original music by Marion Lozano, composed by Chris Wood. Our theme song was composed by Jim Brunberg and Ben Landsverk from Wonderly.

That's what The Daily is all about. I am Katrin Benhold. meet on Monday.