Supreme Court repeals anti-discrimination law

WASHINGTON — Conservative Supreme Court judges on Monday said they were willing to stop explicit consideration of race in college admissions, examining cases that challenge anti-racism policies at the University of North Carolina and Harvard University. A new “race-neutral” admissions policy can be enacted that aims to increase racial diversity. However, some justices have said they would be willing to allow applicants to discuss their racial identity in any form as part of an essay dealing with their experiences, such as the example of overcoming discrimination. Difficulty in Achieving That Goal Without Consideration of Race The positive actions introduced to correct historical discrimination have been a controversial issue for many years. Racial Equality Means All Races Are Treated Equal The Harvard case of a case brought by a group called Students for Fair Admission, led by conservative activist Ed Blum. The verdict is expected by the end of June. Activist outside the Supreme Court on Monday. Shuran Huang / The New York Times via Redux During nearly five hours of oral arguments, conservative justices expressed their hostility to the explicit consideration of race in the petition. “What does your mother learn from checking boxes?” Justice Samuel Alito asked UNC attorney Ryan Park. However, some conservatives seemed more open to recognizing, at least to some extent, the race of applicants as part of the process. If box-checking isn’t allowed, Harvard asks, “What if applicants are allowed to consider what they say in their essays?” Growing up, you had to fight discrimination, and how did you do that?” Chief Justice John Roberts asked Cameron Norris, a lawyer who disputes Harvard policy. Norris said these expressions of racial identity could be considered legally in colleges and universities. Taylor Dumson and her mother, Kimberly Dumson, hear oral arguments outside the Supreme Court on Monday. Chip Soodevila / Getty Images Conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett, former Notre Dame Law School professor, said students were concerned about race, not the “box check” Alito referred to. .The question posed by Roberts and Barrett, and a similar comment by Justice Brett Kavanaugh, another conservative, suggest that if the courts end explicit consideration of race, what are the ways to foster diversity? Indicates whether a kind of race-neutral policy can be considered: Conservative Supreme Court’s 2003 ruling that preferential treatment will no longer be necessary 25 years after colleges meet their diversity goals without regard to race It is considered after an ambitious deadline of a quarter century. “If there is no end?” she asked. Conservative judge Clarence Thomas asked if the university had a strong interest in diversity, and fellow conservative Neil Judge Gorsuch expressed concern that the goal of achieving diversity was similar to having a racial quota system previously banned by the courts of Harvard, which, as part of her account of what constitutes a diverse class, includes children of wealthy donors, talented people This includes athletes and people with parents who went to college. He was surprised that Harvard thought having a competitive squash team was essential to its diversity goal. “I’m not inventing it,” Gorsuch said. Anti-discrimination supporters will hold a rally in front of the Supreme Court on Monday Chip Somodevilla / Getty ImagesAs supporters of anti-racism gathered outside the courthouse, the first oral argument for UNC policy was the liberal Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor to the challenger’s attorney Patrick Strawbridge, where university administrators did not take racial and diverse societies into account. It started by asking questions about how applicants from economic backgrounds could be evaluated. Sotomayor said. “If you’re black, you’re more likely to attend under-resourced schools. You’re more likely to teach unqualified teachers than others. You’re more likely to be seen as having less academic potential.” Liberal Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson refuted Strawbridge’s account of the UNC’s process, saying that race is never considered alone. “They’re looking at the perfect person,” she said. The university added, “Just because someone checks the box doesn’t just take into account race.” Jackson also questioned whether ending the consideration of race would create new legal problems. Whether, for example, black students, descendants of slaves, were not allowed to talk about their family background on their applications, it would be discriminatory if white students from North Carolina could still talk about their family background. A white applicant, on the other hand, “could have a familial background. A black applicant would not have been able to consider and evaluate his story because it relates to his race in many ways,” she said. Justice Elena Kagan was a strong advocate for the value of black applicants. The racial diversity of campuses called colleges “a pipeline to our society’s leadership.” Aid competition could be considered a factor in the admissions process because the university was so interested in maintaining a diverse campus The legal debate was over, although the Supreme Court banned racial quotas, but It remains unresolved in a divided 1978 Supreme Court ruling that opened the door to some considerations, which has since been left unset by Kennedy, who has since retired, and President Joe Biden’s appointment of Jackson to replace fellow liberal Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer. Failing to change the ideological balance of the bench: Jackson will step down from the case and only participate in the North Carolina conflict because he previously served on the Harvard Supervisory Board.Blum’s group believes that considering race in college admissions is in line with federal laws prohibiting educational discrimination and Education and the equal protection provisions of the 14th Amendment They argue that UNC’s admissions policy discriminates against white and Asian applicants and Harvard’s policy discriminates against Asians In both cases, lower courts favored universities, Advocates of universities (including the Biden administration, civil rights groups, corporations, and former military leaders) argue that excluding on the basis of race is completely different from advocating for university policies. Universities promote diversity on campus. It’s just one factor that’s considered as part of a broader, individualized analysis of applicants: black and Hispanic black and Hispanic policies often fail to achieve diversity when anti-discrimination measures cease. Enrollment will decline, advocates of the practice say. Challengers point to examples in nine states that already ban the practice as evidence that racial considerations are not essential.
#Supreme #Court #repeals #antidiscrimination #law

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *