Affirmative Inaction

A setback for racial justice or identity politics devouring itself?

Is a wealthy black kid from an upper income household more disadvantaged than a Bangladeshi immigrant’s kid whose parents work multiple jobs to stay afloat? That’s the conundrum in using race as a factor in college admissions, especially in an increasingly multi ethnic society. 

In a 6-3 SCOTUS decision, the court on Thursday ruled that Harvard and the University of North Carolina race-conscious admissions programs were unlawful, striking down nearly 50 years of jurisprudence on affirmative action in higher education.

Writing for the majority, Chief Justice John G. Roberts argued: 

“The Harvard and U.N.C. admissions programs cannot be reconciled with the guarantees of the Equal Protection Clause. Both programs lack sufficiently focused and measurable objectives warranting the use of race, unavoidably employ race in a negative manner, involve racial stereotyping and lack meaningful end points. We have never permitted admissions programs to work in that way, and we will not do so today.”

Is this a setback for racial justice? Or is this a case of identity politics devouring itself where racial remedies benefit some historically disadvantaged groups at the expense of others?

The debate continues, even as this seismic shift in the law portends greater and arguably more consequential policies for dealing with America’s original sin.

What's your take? Tell us on Twitter: https://twitter.com/DirtyModerate

Thanks for helping us save democracy one episode at a time!


Audio version: