h Knell for Race Discrimination // (John Hinderaker)

I haven’t seen or listened to a transcript from today’s Supreme Court hearing. Scott and Steve may provide more detailed commentary in the near future. Based on news accounts, it seems that the day went well for those opposed to race discrimination in higher educational. The pro-discrimination Washington Post is not inconsolable

Monday’s Conservative justices seemed open to ending decades-old Supreme Court precedent that allowed colleges and universities to admit race-conscious students. They repeatedly expressed doubts that institutions would ever be able to concede an “endpoint” in their use race to create diverse student bodies.

After almost five hours of debate, affirmative-action programs at Harvard University and University of North Carolina Chapel Hill were clearly in danger. It is unclear how broad such a decision could be and what it would mean to other elite colleges and state universities.

Did anyone say that they could only rely on their “grades and test results alone?” That was something I didn’t know. It’s not clear if they can rely upon skin color.

Justice Thomas was a whirlwind when he questioned one the great shibboleths in our time-the importance of diversity in skin color.

Thomas asked Ryan Park, the state solicitor general, to explain the educational benefits of including race in college admissions. Park replied that studies involving stock trading results showed that “racially diverse groups… perform at an higher level.”

Park stated that the mechanism is designed to reduce groupthink and allow people to have more long-lasting disagreements, which leads to more efficient outcomes.

Thomas replied, “I guess that I don’t place much stock in that, because I’ve also heard similar arguments in support of segregation.”

“I’ve heard diversity a lot, but I don’t know what it means. It seems to mean all things for everyone,” Thomas stated during his line-of-questioning. ***

Thomas appeared to reject the idea affirmative action policies should be continued simply because a school has a compelling interest in it.

Thomas stated, “I cannot think about another area in which the court deferred on the alleged discriminator on an as important as compelling interests.”

***

Thomas was not convinced and stated that the court would not accept a contrary assertion made by a college.

Thomas asked, “If this were… this case was Virginia’s school district in 1960 that is alleged discriminating, would the court defer to it asserting that the races do well if they are segregated?”

Hinojosa stated, “That’s just not this case.” This case concerns a restricted classification that does not involve a compelling interest.

“That’s not what i’m talking about. I’m referring to the court’s deference. Virginia would be put to the test in that case. It does not in this case. Thomas replied, “I am asking you why it is different.”

Hinojosa stated that University of North Carolina was under a “high burden” in order to include race as an admission factor. However, it argued it met it.

I think the Court will disagree.