affirmative action and college admissions calling the policy on constitutional decision came after a case was brought in front of harvard in the case of north carolina. our reporter has the details. a landmark decision from a bitterly divided supreme court, rejecting the use of race as we know it in college admissions, chief johnson to conclude programs at harvard and the university of north carolina violated the law, riding the schools unavoidably a cloyed race in a negative manner involved racial stereotyping, and lack meaningful and points. the polarizing stigmatizing and on fair jurisprudence that allowed colleges and universities to use a students race and ethnicity as a factor to either admit them or reject them has been overruled. praise there from the architect of the lawsuits, the schools were accused of giving substantial preferences to black and hispanic applicants while discriminating against asian students. what this lawsuit reveals is that personality
hour gets underway on this thursday night. good evening, once again i m stephanie ruhle, let s take a big deep breath because we have a lot to cover tonight, today the nation s highest court struck down race based affirmative action and college admissions calling the policy on constitutional decision came after a case was brought in front of harvard in the case of north carolina. our reporter has the details. a landmark decision from a bitterly divided supreme court, rejecting the use of race as we know it in college admissions, chief johnson to conclude programs at harvard and the university of north carolina violated the law, riding the schools unavoidably a cloyed race in a negative manner involved racial stereotyping, and lack meaningful and points. the polarizing stigmatizing and on fair jurisprudence that allowed colleges and universities to use a students race and ethnicity as a factor to either admit them or reject them has been overruled. praise there from th
decision. discrimination still exists in america. today s decision does not change that. we cannot let the decision be a permanent step back for the country. is this relevant for the court? this is not a normal court. gop presidential candidates praised the courts ruling as did republican lawmakers. speaker kevin mccarthy and minority leader mitch mcconnell both said the decision would ensure fair competition in admissions. with that let s get smarter with the help of our leadoff panel, and tonight we certainly need their expertise. peter baker chief white house correspondent for the new york times, aclu president deborah archer she s director of the civil rights clinic and director of the center on race inequality and the law at nyu. janine soup gerson former clerk to justice david sowder and first asian american woman to tenure at harvard law. and michael is here president and ceo of the brennan center, he served under president
pro diversity, pro increasing access, let s say they re anti affirmative action have adopted the vision of affirmative action the court put forward today on affirmative action programs that is about set asides and bonuses. that s been illegal for a very long time, colleges and universities are not using quotas, and so when people say that they are pro diversity but anti affirmative action, they misunderstand how those programs actually work. peter, we saw the impact that the end of roe had at the ballot box in the midterms especially among younger voters who were not necessarily that enthused before we saw it overthrew her and, do you think this decision could have a similar impact in 2024 with liberals, young people? yes, it s a good question i think pulls on affirmative action are different than polls on abortion rights, it has not
to opportunity access to power, get rid of the measures that at the end of the day amount to affirmative action for white people. michael, the group that brought these cases, the people who wanted this outcome, what was their argument? their argument was that this was reverse discrimination that this was in violation of the constitution and that you need somehow, in our society, permeated as it is with rates only to have a color blind remedies, they ve been trying to get this result for decades the facts have not changed. the society has not changed except becoming more diverse, what has changed is who is on the court there is now a 60 vote supermajority, very strong conservatives here marching very closely together in lockstep in. that s what has changed and that is why this argument suddenly found receptive years. jeanne, you are at harvard