justices pull the rip cord and color blindness for all by fiat, irrelevance in law does not make it so in life. and this country s experiences, has brought the crucial work of unc and other institutions of higher learning are doing to solve america s real world problems. no one benefits from ignorance she writes, and although formal race-linked barriers are gone, race still matters to the lived experiences to all americans in innumerable ways and today s ruling is going to make things worse not better. the best it can say is that it is going to proceed parenthetically ostrich-like, in the hope of the ending of race will end racism.
race-based admissions or race as a factor in the admissions process, but we do not yet know how they will come down in a case that has been continuously a part of successive supreme court confirmation hearings, and let alone ballot initiatives in places like california. just so you know, it is in the zone of 10:00 p.m., and the rulings could come any second now. and we know two boxes that are delivered in writing there. and that means at least two decisions today, and there could be as many as four or so, because they can pack a couple into the box. but at least two, elie. and the gay rights decision in colorado is fascinating because of how the justices will choose to write about this. this has to do with whether someone has the right to refuse service because someone is gay. what are you looking for in terms of how the justices frame this, because if they say that
justice marshall and sort of the blissful race neutrality and blissful neutrality and quoting justice marshall, and the capacity before he was a justice and leading lawyer for defense fund, and says that he, quote, rejected the hollow race ignorant idea, and so saying when he was an attorney in key of bringing brown versus board of education, and nobody in our court would understand better than he, and even he rejected this race neutral view of the law. and laura coates, i wanted to ask you about ketanji brown jackson said that the justices stuck their head in the sand when it comes to the reality of the role that race plays in people s lives, and what do you think about her dissent in
university case. yes. it is the affirmative action cases of harvard and unc, but it affects all colleges and universities, and that it violates equal protection clause which essentially means that colleges and universities can no longer consider race as a factor in the admissions. this is the decision that seemed to be hinted at, at oral arguments here. in particular, the justices seizing on the decision back in 2003 which had allowed for affirmative action, race as a factor, but it sort of said, maybe affirmative action won t be needed in about 25 years, and we are just about at the 25-year mark from 2003, and the conservative justices ruling that affirmative action is no more at colleges and universities. we have to dig a little bit more into the case to find out if race can even be considered holistically for race-neutral
justices, and one descenting. and the chief justice says in other words, the student must be based on his or her experiences as an individual and not on the basis of race. and race is part of it, but not solely. i am interested to see how much leeway that gives schools. we are joined by tony chin who is currently a professor at northwestern university, and he is writing a book on this, and he did file an amicus brief in this, and so talk to me again about, the scope of this decision in your mind, and what it changes now. well, the decision just came