Jackson Dissents From Supreme Court
Contents
Jackson Dissents From Supreme Court Affirmative Action Order: Due to Ketanji Brown Jackson’s dissent, lawmakers, civil rights organisations, and K-12 and higher education advocates voiced their opposition to a historic Supreme Court decision concerning race.
On Thursday, as Washington, D.C., choked through a Code Red air quality alert, hazy smog settled around the Supreme Court, prompting liberals and social justice advocates to sound a different kind of alarm. The Court’s conservative majority had just overturned decades of precedent with a pair of opinions barring the use of race in college admissions.
In a scathing critique of one of these rulings, concerning the University of North Carolina, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote, “It is with let-them-eat-cake oblivion that the majority pulls the ripcord and declares ‘colorblindness for all’ by legal fiat.”
The Court’s newest justice continued, “But blaming race in law does not make it irrelevant in life,” in a more heartfelt dissent than legalistic dissent. The Court has now been lured into interfering with the critical work UNC and other higher educational institutions do to address America’s real-world problems due to its separation from the country’s past and present experiences. Ignorance benefits no one.”
From slavery to sharecropping and vagrancy laws to Jim Crow, the Great Migration northward, disparate treatment under the tax system, and the deliberate placement of toxic waste facilities, systemic racism was traced in this narrative.
Jackson countered the conventional wisdom by bringing up issues like health care disparities, inadequate school funding, and the lack of freeways in Black neighbourhoods. He detailed how the United States government was founded and continues to function with a predilection for white citizens.
According to her, it is significant for present purposes that, in excluding Black people, government policies worked affirmatively – one might even say acted affirmatively – to give preference to those who were not Black.” In today’s society, these past preferences continue to be reinforced.
Considering this history, I cannot discuss how facially race-blind policies still cause racial harm today,” she noted. Given our past, it’s not hard to guess what led to the persistence of racial divides.
As Frederick Douglass said, it has never been a matter of lack of desire or ability for Black Americans, too, ‘stand on [they are] own legs.’ It was simply what A persistent and poisonous rejection of what had previously been gained for whites in every State in the Union was something that Justice [John Marshall] Harlan understood 140 years ago.
As recorded by past historians. Its echo will reverberate into infinity. Inequalities based on race that emerged hundreds of years ago persist today. From what I can tell, they haven’t softened much.
This case involves two lawsuits against Harvard University and UNC, arguing that specific admissions policies designed to increase diversity and level the playing field for historically disadvantaged populations discriminate against Asian Americans.
The Role of Affirmative Action
Jackson argues that the Court’s decision “fails to appreciate the role of race-conscious admissions in remedying the effects of a long history of racial subjugation in the US.”
She states that despite the Supreme Court’s ruling, she “remains [s] convinced that affirmative action plays a vital role in levelling the playing field to create opportunity for those who have been discriminated against because of their color for a long time.”
Precedent Set by Previous Supreme Court Justices
Jackson, in her dissent, cited previous Supreme Court decisions that had upheld affirmative action. She contended that the 1976 Bakke decision, which affirmed the validity of affirmative action programs, would be “eviscerated” by the Court’s decision to terminate race-based college admission standards.
Potential Impact on Other Admissions Policy
Jackson further warned of the potential negative implications of the decision on other admissions policies, such as legacy admissions or athletic recruitment. She contended that the Court’s judgment would allow schools to discriminate against minorities in favor of more qualified applicants.
Arguments Against the Supreme Court’s Decision
Jackson’s dissent originates in her innate independence and the primacy she places on her own experience. This paper argues that universities should “acknowledge and take account of the systematic barriers—especially those stemming from racism—that have hindered the potential for learning of certain groups and that they should take deliberate steps to advance the educational opportunities of such groups to give them a level playing field with their white peers.”
Also read: Kentucky Attorney General Accused Of Seeking Donations From Company His Office Is Investigating
She continues to suggest that universities should be allowed to consider factors other than academic performance when making admissions decisions because “revealing more of an applicant’s identity, background, and characteristics can help to open a window to the admission of a diverse class of students.”
