CLOCK TURNS BACK: Clarence Thomas opposes the system that put him on the bench
Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas solidified his commitment to rolling back racial and social justice change in his latest comments on an affirmative action case being heard in oral arguments today, claiming that he doesn’t know what the word “diversity” means.
“I’ve heard the word diversity quite a few times, and I don’t have a clue what it means.”
— Justice Clarence Thomas asks for a “specific definition” of diversity and its benefits during oral arguments for Students for Fair Admissions v. UNC, a case challenging affirmative action pic.twitter.com/1EUfyCR3n4
— The Recount (@therecount) October 31, 2022
Anti-affirmative action group, Students for Fair Admissions, filed a case with the Supreme Court challenging race-based admissions at universities, claiming discrimination against Asian-American applicants and accusing Harvard University of discriminating against them.
“Harvard’s mistreatment of Asian American applicants is appalling, int hat the school disfavors Asians on the basis Harvard believes they “lack leadership and confidence and are less likable and kind,'” the group’s suit claims.
None of that is substantiated.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, prior to recusing herself from the case due to her ties to Harvard University, asked “what particular injuries were suffered.”
Patrick Strawbridge, attorney for the Students for Fair Admissions, responded, “unfair competition.”
“Schools have no legitimate interest in maintaining a precise racial balance.” The group argues that the “same Fourteenth Amendment that required public schools to dismantle segregation after Brown cannot be defeated by the whims of university administrators.”
Justice Sonia Sotomayor pushed back on the lawyer, saying, “Sometimes race does correlate to some experiences and not others.” She continued, “If you’re Black, you’re more likely to be in an under-resourced school, you’re more likely to be taught by teachers who are not as qualified as others, you’re more likely to be viewed as having less academic potential.”
“Refusing to take race into account might create its own equal protection violation. Jackson presented a hypothetical in which two students — one a legacy student at the university; the other a descendant of slaves who would have been historically prevented from enrolling in the university — submit college essays that detail their personal family histories. In such a situation, asked Jackson, ‘isn’t that an equal protection problem?’”
