NEWS
THE HARVARD CRIMSON JUNE 30, 2023
5
THE DISSENTS IN QUOTES
The Court’s recharacterization of Brown is nothing but revisionist history and an affront to the legendary life of Justice Marshall, a great jurist who was a champion of true equal opportunity, not rhetorical flourishes about colorblindness. Sonia M. Sotomayor Supreme Court Associate Justice
In a rebuke of the majority, Associate Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson ‘92 wrote in her dissent that “deeming race irrelevant in law does not make it so in life.” COURTESY OF AP PHOTO / ANDREW HARNIK
DISSENT
Justices Rebuke Ruling in Dissents FIERY DISSENTS. Supreme Court Justices Sonia M. Sotomayor, Ketanji Brown Jackson, and Elena Kagan dissent in ruling on affirmative action. BY RAHEM D. HAMID AND J. SELLERS HILL CRIMSON STAFF WRITERS
S
upreme Court Associate Justices Sonia M. Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson ’92 fiercely dissented from the Supreme Court’s decision to dramatically limit the use of race in college admissions Thursday. Across nearly 100 pages, the two justices — who are on the court’s liberal wing — slammed Chief Justice John Roberts’s opinion for the majority — as well as concurrences by three other conservative justices — who ruled that race-conscious admissions policies at Harvard and the University of North Carolina were unconstitutional. “Today, this Court stands in the way and rolls back decades of precedent and momentous progress,” Sotomayor wrote in her 69page dissent, which was joined by Associate Justice Elena Kagan and in part by Jackson.
Jackson had recused herself from any part in the Harvard case due to her former position on the Board of Overseers, the University’s second-highest governing body. Her 29-page dissent focused solely on the merits of the case for UNC. Sotomayor read a summary of her decision from the bench on Thursday — a move reserved for particularly strong dissents. Her dissent dedicated several pages to the history of the 14th Amendment and its Equal Protection Clause, which the majority opinion stated “cannot be reconciled” with the race-conscious admissions criteria at Harvard and UNC. “The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment enshrines a guarantee of racial equality,” Sotomayor wrote. “The Court long ago concluded that this guarantee can be enforced through race-conscious means in a society that is not, and has never been, colorblind.” Her dissent also appeared to rebuke the interpretation of Brown v. Board of Education — the landmark 1954 ruling that prohibited racial segregation in public schools — by the court’s conservative wing. “The time for making distinctions based on race had passed,”
Roberts wrote of the Brown decision, which was extensively examined throughout the justices’ opinions. Sotomayor said that the Court’s opinion was “nothing but revisionist history and an affront to the legendary life of Justice Marshall” — the court’s first Black justice, who himself agreed in 1978 that race could be considered in college admissions. “Brown,” Sotomayor wrote, “was a race-conscious decision that emphasized the importance of education in our society.” Sotomayor also devoted several pages to the history of slavery, racism, and antisemitism at UNC and Harvard — extensively citing material from the University’s landmark legacy of slavery report. “These may be uncomfortable truths to some, but they are truths nonetheless,” she wrote. “It is against this historical backdrop that Harvard and UNC have reckoned with their past and its lingering effects.” “Acknowledging the reality that race has always mattered and continues to matter, these universities have established institutional goals of diversity and inclusion,” she wrote. Acknowledging a footnote in the majority’s opinion permit-
ting the use of race in admissions to military colleges, Sotomayor panned the decision as one that “harms not just respondents and students but also our institutions and democratic society more broadly.” “The majority recognizes the compelling need for diversity in the military and the national security implications at stake, but it ends race-conscious college admissions at civilian universities implicating those interests anyway,” she wrote. “The Court ignores the dangerous consequences of an America where its leadership does not reflect the diversity of the People,” Sotomayor later added. In her opinion, Jackson similarly enumerated historical and contemporary challenges that have uniquely burdened Black Americans, arguing they were relevant considerations for “colleges like UNC to assess merit fully.” “History speaks. In some form, it can be heard forever. The race-based gaps that first developed centuries ago are echoes from the past that still exist today,” Jackson added. “By all accounts, they are still stark.” One solution to address these gaps, Jackson asserted, was the use of race-conscious admissions
practices. “With let-them-eat-cake obliviousness, today, the majority pulls the ripcord and announces ‘colorblindness for all’ by legal fiat,” Jackson wrote. “But deeming race irrelevant in law does not make it so in life.” “If the colleges of this country are required to ignore a thing that matters, it will not just go away. It will take longer for racism to leave us. And, ultimately, ignoring race just makes it matter more,” she continued. Jackson also issued a strong rebuttal of Associate Justice Clarence Thomas’s concurrence, which spent seven pages attacking Jackson’s arguments. “Justice Thomas’s prolonged attack responds to a dissent that I did not write in order to assail an admissions program that is not the one UNC has crafted,” Jackson wrote. “Justice Thomas’s opinion also demonstrates an obsession with race consciousness that far outstrips my or UNC’s holistic understanding that race can be a factor that affects applicants’ unique life experiences.” Thomas, Jackson wrote, “ignites too many more straw men to list, or fully extinguish, here.”
History speaks. In some form, it can be heard forever. The race-based gaps that first developed centuries ago are echoes from the past that still exist today. By all accounts, they are still stark. Ketanji Brown Jackson ’92 Supreme Court Associate Justice
These may be uncomfortable truths to some, but they are truths nonetheless. Sonia M. Sotomayor Supreme Court Associate Justice
With let-them-eatcake obliviousness, today, the majority pulls the ripcord and announces “colorblindness for all” by legal fiat. But deeming race irrelevant in law does not make it so in life. Ketanji Brown Jackson ’92 Supreme Court Associate Justice
rahem.hamid@thecrimson.com sellers.hill@thecrimson.com
Harvard Reaffirms Commitment to Diversity, Will Abide by Ruling BY EMMA H. HAIDAR AND CLAIRE YUAN CRIMSON STAFF WRITERS
In response to the Supreme Court’s decision effectively striking down race-conscious admissions, Harvard leadership affirmed the University’s commitment to diversity while declaring it would abide by the ruling. The Court’s 6-2 decision, released Thursday morning, restricted affirmative action in higher education admissions and ruled Harvard’s race-conscious admissions practices unconstitutional — a major setback for the University. The ruling comes following years of scrutiny towards Harvard’s admissions practices, beginning when anti-affirmative action group Students for Fair Admissions filed its first suit in 2014. Harvard’s public response to the decision came an hour after the Supreme Court’s ruling. In a joint statement, Harvard’s top brass reaffirmed the University’s commitment to “the fundamental principle that deep and transformative teaching, learn-
ing, and research depend upon a community comprising people of many backgrounds, perspectives, and lived experiences.” The statement — jointly signed by outgoing University President Lawrence S. Bacow, President-elect Claudine Gay, Provost Alan M. Garber ’76, Executive Vice President Meredith Weenick, and the 15 University deans — stated that Harvard “will certainly comply with the Court’s decision.” In a press release, Edward J. Blum, president of Students for Fair Admissions, the anti-affirmative action group that brought the suit to the Supreme Court, threatened further litigation if Harvard and the University of North Carolina — the other defendant in the lawsuit — ignore the Court’s ruling. “We remain vigilant and intend to initiate litigation should universities defiantly flout this clear ruling and the dictates of Title VI and the Equal Protection Clause,” he stated. In the immediate aftermath of the decision, UNC Chancellor Kevin M. Guskiewicz released a statement reasserting the university’s commitment to “bringing
together talented students with different perspectives and life experiences and continues to make an affordable, high-quality education accessible to the people of North Carolina and beyond.” The message was then followed by another statement from David L. Boliek Jr., chairman of the UNC-Chapel Hill Board of Trustees. Both statements confirmed that UNC will also comply with the Supreme Court’s decision. In a brief video message, Gay echoed the joint Harvard statement, emphasizing Harvard’s commitment to diversity and opportunity. “For many, this decision feels deeply personal. It makes real the possibility that opportunities will be foreclosed, but at Harvard it has also strengthened our resolve to continue opening doors,” Gay said. Gay said the University will dedicate the coming weeks to “working to understand the decision and its implications for our policies.” “While we don’t have all the answers about what’s next, we do know that we will move forward together,” she added.
The Thursday joint statement also noted that the Court’s decision still allows universities to factor an individual applicant’s reflections on how race has impacted their life in the admissions process. The University has not yet confirmed any changes to its admissions practices. “In the weeks and months ahead, drawing on the talent and expertise of our Harvard community, we will determine how to preserve, consistent with the Court’s new precedent, our essential values,” the statement from University leadership reads. “To our students, faculty, staff, researchers, and alumni—past, present, and future—who call Harvard your home, please know that you are, and always will be, Harvard,” they wrote. “Nothing today has changed that.” emma.haidar@thecrimson.com claire.yuan@thecrimson.com
