Vice President Kamala Harris has slammed the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling to abolish affirmative action in college admissions, calling the decision “history-blind” rather than “color-blind.”
Protesters rallied in Washington after the ruling, which overturned a decades-old policy aimed at increasing the number of black, Asian and Hispanic students in universities.
Speaking at the Global Black Economic Forum in New Orleans, Ms. Harris said, “Our nation’s highest court just made an affirmative action decision today, and I feel compelled to speak out.”
“It’s a denial of opportunity in a lot of ways.” It’s a complete misnomer to say this is about color blindness, when in fact it’s about story blindness. Blind to data, blind to empirical evidence of inequality. Being blind to the power that diversity brings to classrooms and boardrooms.”
Her criticism of the decision came after President Joe Biden previously said the Supreme Court had done more to “unravel fundamental rights” than any other court in recent history.
Vice President Kamala Harris has slammed the Supreme Court’s landmark decision to abolish affirmative action in college admissions
Protesters rallied in Washington after the ruling, which overturned a decades-old policy aimed at increasing the number of black, Asian and Hispanic students in universities
Biden explained what he meant when he said earlier in the day that the Supreme Court is not “normal” in an interview on MSNBC.
“What I was trying to say was that it did more to clarify fundamental rights and fundamental decisions than any other court in recent history.” And that’s what I meant by “not normal,” he said.
In an interview with Nicolle Wallace, Biden reiterated his opposition to filling the court with more judges, which some Liberal Democrats have been pushing for.
“I think they could do too much damage.” But I think if we try to expand the court, maybe we’ll politicize it forever — that’s not healthy. That we can’t come back,” he said.
Biden said Thursday at the White House the Supreme Court decision was proof that “discrimination still exists in America.”
“This is not a normal court,” Biden said of the majority conservative bench that ruled that race-based admissions programs at Harvard and the University of North Carolina (UNC) were unconstitutional.
“I know that today’s court decision is a great disappointment to so many people, including myself, but we cannot allow the decision to be an enduring setback,” he said in his speech in the Roosevelt Room of the White House.
President Joe Biden said the Supreme Court has done more to “unravel fundamental rights” than any other court in recent history
In two rulings Thursday, the conservative majority of the Supreme Court overturned the admissions plans of Harvard and the University of North Carolina, the nation’s oldest private and public colleges.
The vote was 6-3 in North Carolina and 6-2 in Harvard – with Liberal Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson defeated.
In his remarks, Biden acknowledged that many Americans believe affirmative action gives minorities an unfair advantage in college admissions, but that is not the case, he noted.
“This is not a normal court,” President Joe Biden said of the Supreme Court
“Many people mistakenly believe that affirmative action allows admissions to unskilled students before qualified students.” “That’s not how college admissions work,” he said.
He argued that universities create a pool of qualified students and from there add other factors like grades and race.
The President encouraged universities to continue to consider the “difficulties” students had to overcome to apply to college and suggested that schools “consider the difficulties a student has overcome.”
“There is still discrimination in America.” Today’s decision does not change that. It’s a simple fact. “If a student has overcome adversity — had to overcome it — on the path to education, the college should recognize and appreciate that,” he said.
He said that colleges “should not back down from their commitment to making sure they stay current with groups from diverse backgrounds and experiences that reflect all of America.”
He criticized higher education for remaining reserved for the privileged.
“Today, too many schools only benefit from the wealthy and well-connected people.” For far too long, opportunities have been at the expense of working people. “We need a higher education system that works for everyone, from Appalachia to Atlanta and well beyond,” he said.
A demonstrator protests after the Supreme Court verdict
Chief Justice John Roberts was joined in the majority view by Republican-appointed Justices Amy Coney Barrett, Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh. The court’s liberal judges, Ketanji Brown Jackson, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, disagreed in the North Carolina case; Jackson withdrew from the Harvard case
The universities were sued in 2014 by Students for Fair Admissions, a conservative nonprofit group, over their race-based admissions policies, claiming they violated Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Fourteenth Amendment’s equal treatment clause. The cases went through lower courts, deciding on the side of Harvard and UNC, before reaching the Supreme Court for hearings last year.
“Because the Harvard and UNC admissions programs lack sufficiently focused and measurable goals that justify the use of race, inevitably use race in negative ways, involve racial stereotypes, and have no meaningful endpoints, these admissions programs cannot compete with the guarantees of the equal protection.” Clause,” reads the majority opinion of Chief Justice John Roberts.
Roberts was supported in the majority opinion by Republican-appointed Justices Amy Coney Barrett, Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh.
Liberal Justices Ketanji Brown Jackson, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan disagreed in the North Carolina case. Brown Jackson withdrew from the Harvard case because she had served on an advisory board of directors.
Judge Thomas, who was appointed the second black judge in history, called race-based admissions “taxless” and “designed to ensure a specific racial mix in the entering classes.”
In his unanimous opinion, read out in a rare movement from the bench, he continued, stating in no uncertain terms that while he was “painfully aware” of discrimination against others of his race, he had hope that all Americans would be treated equally under the law.
“While painfully aware of the social and economic devastation that has befallen my race and all who suffer discrimination, I have abiding hope that this country will live up to the principles so clearly articulated in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution “United States: that all men are created equal, are equal citizens, and must be treated equally before the law,” wrote Thomas.
Democrat-appointed Justice Sotomayor said in a written dissent that the decision “undoes decades of precedent and meaningful advances.”
“The court cements a superficial regulation of color blindness as a constitutional principle in an endemic segregated society,” she continued.
Brown Jackson – the court’s first black judge – called the decision in her separate dissent “truly a tragedy for all of us.”
Jackson wrote, “Today the majority inadvertently pulls the ripcord and proclaims ‘color blindness for all’ by legal order.” But just because race is irrelevant in law doesn’t mean it is irrelevant in life.”
In particular, Harvard has been accused of violating Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, a landmark law first proposed by John F. Kennedy designed to outlaw racial discrimination. Title VI “prohibits discrimination based on race, color, or national origin in any program or activity receiving federal funding or other federal financial assistance.”
In the case, it was argued that Asian-American students in particular were unlawfully disadvantaged by the affirmative action policy because, despite having good grades compared to other applicants on Harvard’s vague “personal rating scale,” particularly on the “likeability” and “positive Personality”, perform worse.
Activists demonstrate as the Supreme Court hears arguments
The UNC case also examined what the university might consider in admissions practices without the use of race and how this would affect diversity on campus. Both Harvard and UNC have asserted that the use of race in admissions does not constitute discrimination against Asian Americans.
Two former presidents had two different opinions.
Former President Donald Trump, the current Republican nominee for president, wrote on Truth Social that the decision was “a great day for America.” People of exceptional ability and everything else necessary for success, including the future greatness of our country, will finally be rewarded.”
Former President Barack Obama said in a statement that affirmative action “has enabled generations of students like Michelle and I to prove we belong.” Now it’s up to all of us to give young people the opportunities they deserve — and to help students around the world benefit from new perspectives.”