UNC Chapel Hill’s incoming class is less diverse after Supreme Court affirmative action ruling

 By Christine Zhu

The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill’s newest class is less diverse following the Supreme Court’s 2023 affirmative action ruling, according to its latest student enrollment data released this week.

The percentage of first-year and transfer students identifying as white or Asian increased this year from 88.5 percent to 89.6 percent, compared to the fall 2023 report.

Meanwhile, the number of Black, Hispanic, and Native American students declined from 22.9 percent to 19 percent.

Right-Wing Supreme Court Rules Trump Has 'Absolute Immunity' for Official Acts

By Jake Johnson

 "In every use of official power, the president is now a king above the law," warned Justice Sonia Sotomayor. "With fear for our democracy, I dissent."

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled along ideological lines on Monday that former President Donald Trump is entitled to "absolute immunity" for "official acts" taken while he was in office, a decision that liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor warned makes any occupant of the Oval Office "a king above the law."

Writing for the majority in the 6-3 decision, Chief Justice John Roberts declared that Trump "may not be prosecuted for exercising his core constitutional powers, and he is entitled, at a minimum, to a presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts." 

Liberal Justices Grill Attorney in Supreme Court Case on Criminalizing Homelessness

By Julia Conley

"Where are they supposed to sleep? Are they supposed to kill themselves not sleeping?" asked Justice Sonia Sotomayor of unhoused people who have been barred from sleeping outside in Grants Pass, Oregon.

As housing rights advocates and people who have been unhoused themselves rallied outside the U.S. Supreme Court Monday to demand an end to the criminalization of homelessness, the court's three liberal justices demanded to know how the city of Grants Pass, Oregon can penalize residents who take part in an act necessary for human survival—sleeping—just because they are forced to do so outside.

Right-Wing Justices Appear Ready to Eviscerate Affirmative Action in College Admissions

 "Killing affirmative action will have a devastating impact on Black, Hispanic, and Native students," wrote one journalist, "and such a ruling would be totally unjustified by the text or history of the Constitution."

KENNY STANCIL

October 31, 2022

During the course of roughly five hours of oral argument on Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court's far-right supermajority seemed open to rolling back decades of precedent allowing public and private colleges and universities to make race-conscious admissions decisions.

Referring to Students for Fair Admissions v. President and Fellows of Harvard and Students for Fair Admissions v. University of North Carolina—cases he contends were "manufactured to abolish affirmative action in higher education"—Slate's Mark Joseph Stern argued that "all six conservative justices are poised to declare that colleges' consideration of race violates the Constitution's equal protection clause and the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which applies equal protection standards to private institutions."

"Because that argument was cynically engineered by white conservatives aggrieved by 'reverse racism'—and is so clearly at odds with an original understanding of the 14th Amendment—progressives have lined up to defend Harvard and UNC," Stern noted, citing "the amicus briefs filed in support of the universities by seemingly every liberal group under the sun."

Late last week, ReNika Moore, director of ACLU's Racial Justice program, said in a statement: "Race-conscious admissions practices help create a diverse student body that benefits the educational experiences of all students. Time and again, lower courts and the Supreme Court have recognized universities' ability to consider race in the admissions process in order to help foster this."

Civil rights attorney Sherrilyn Ifill, former president of the NAACP's Legal Defense Fund, also alluded to the high court's previous decisions upholding race-conscious college admissions, adding that new challenges keep cropping up because "opponents to affirmative action know they have an open door to continue to try and overturn it."

Although the court is not scheduled to hand down an opinion in the pair of cases until next summer, its right-wing justices on Monday questioned the legitimacy of race-conscious admissions, expressing doubt that schools would ever concede an "endpoint" in their consideration of race to build more diverse student bodies.

"The question," according to The Washington Post, "is how broad such a decision by the court's conservative majority might be, and what it would mean for other institutions of higher education."

"Overturning the court's precedents that race can be one factor of many in making admission decisions would have 'profound consequences' for 'the nation that we are and the nation that we aspire to be,' Solicitor General Elizabeth B. Prelogar told the justices during arguments in the Harvard case," the Post reported.

"But the court's conservatives used the two cases to revisit decades of Supreme Court decisions that tolerated a limited use of racial classifications," noted the newspaper. "They seemed unsatisfied with assertions from lawyers representing the schools that the end was near for the use of race-conscious policies. Under repeated questioning, the lawyers conceded they could not provide a date-specific answer to the question: 'When will it end?'"

Notably, as The New York Times pointed out Sunday, both sides in the debate claim to be upholding the legacy of Brown v. Board of Education, the unanimous 1954 ruling that found racial segregation in public education to be unconstitutional. While proponents of affirmative action argue that assembling diverse student bodies is consistent with the civil rights landmark, opponents insist that the decision requires "colorblind" policies.

For instance, Edward Blum, the founder of Students for Fair Admissions, the anti-affirmative action group behind both cases, told NPR on Monday that "the Constitution and our civil rights laws forbid the consideration of race in higher education."

As Vanity Fair's Eric Lutz wrote Monday: "That is not what previous courts have ruled. Since Regents, Grutter, and the 2016 Fisher v. University of Texas decision, the high court has generally upheld universities' race-conscious admissions policies. But this court, with its 6-3 conservative supermajority, has shown little reverence for long-standing precedent—it did away with 50 years of settled law in overturning Roe over the summer—and seems poised to obliterate this one, too."

Justice Clarence Thomas—a beneficiary of affirmative action who has long opposed the policy on the grounds that it is discriminatory—on Monday questioned the meaning and "educational benefits of diversity."

In response to Thomas' inquiry about the original meaning of the 14th Amendment, "the lawyer who wants to abolish affirmative action said that the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which was the foundation for the amendment, was race-neutral," tweeted journalist Cristian Farias.

Farias shared a recent interview he conducted with Eric Foner, in which the esteemed historian of Reconstruction denounced originalism as "intellectually indefensible."

"Colorblindness is not the only original meaning of the 14th Amendment," said Foner. "It was the original meaning in the eyes of some people, but not a lot of others."

In his Monday essay, Stern argued that "killing affirmative action will have a devastating impact on Black, Hispanic, and Native students and such a ruling would be totally unjustified by the text or history of the Constitution."

"But it doesn't follow that the schools in this case use race-conscious admissions for exclusively noble purposes," he wrote, adding:

Instead, elite institutions often use these programs as a Band-Aid to cover deeper structural barriers to genuine diversity among their student bodies—because addressing those problems would require sacrifices that administrators aren't willing to make. A Supreme Court decision outlawing affirmative action will become a scapegoat for universities that see a plunge in enrollment among underrepresented minorities. Progressives should not let them get away with it.

Although the latest legal assault on affirmative action is built on bad history and worse motivations, it did have the benefit of revealing unseemly details about the elite admissions process. The litigation gave the public an unprecedented glimpse into Harvard's standards, which reflect horribly on the school. As Aaron Mak explained in Slate after the trial, Harvard has a preference for four specific groups of applicants known as ALDC: athletes, legacies, those on the dean's list (frequently because of family donations), and the children of faculty. ALDCs constitute about 5% of applicants but 30% of the admitted class. Their admissions rate sits at about 45% compared to the normal rate of less than 5%.

In theory, ALDC preferences are colorblind. In practice, they operate as a massive affirmative action program for white applicants. Over a recent six-year period, 2,200 out of 4,993 admitted white students were ALDC—a figure significantly higher than the overall number of admitted students who are Black (1,392) and Hispanic (1,283). White ALDC students are not overrepresented because they happen to be more qualified; to the contrary, about three-fourths of them would have been rejected without the ALDC boost.

"Elite universities' first response" to the high court's expected elimination of race-conscious admissions in higher education, Stern tweeted, "should be abolishing their affirmative action programs for ultra-privileged white kids."

National Education Association president Becky Pringle said Monday in a statement that "recent events demonstrate that racism and discrimination are not artifacts of American history but persist in every aspect of our society, including our schools, colleges, and universities."

"Affirmative action and programs like it safeguard a stronger future by expanding higher education opportunities to those who have been historically denied a fair shot," said Pringle. "When we ensure the many talents and experiences of students of color aren't overlooked in admissions processes that tend to be biased against them, we create schools, a country, and a future that includes us all. We urge the court to uphold affirmative action in higher education admissions decisions."

Additional Reading:

Supreme Court Poised to Shred What's Left of Voting Rights Act, Plaintiffs Warn,

In 'Dangerous Decision,' Supreme Court Guts Protection of Miranda Rights,

Supreme Court Poised to Shred What's Left of Voting Rights Act, Plaintiffs Warn

"If the court sides with Alabama," wrote a pair of plaintiffs in Merrill v. Milligan, "political opportunities for people of color will disappear."

photo credit: David Sachs

KENNY STANCIL

October 4, 2022

With the U.S. Supreme Court hearing oral arguments Tuesday in Merrill v. Milligan, a pivotal case about map-rigging in Alabama, plaintiffs and other advocates are warning that the court's far-right justices are poised to effectively legalize racial gerrymandering and dismantle what remains of the 1965 Voting Rights Act.  "If the court's right-wing supermajority has its way, Merrill v. Milligan will open the floodgates for racial gerrymandering across the country and diminish the political power of voters of color," Stand Up America deputy political director Reggie Thedford said Monday in a statement.

Although Black voters comprise nearly one-third of Alabama's population, the congressional map approved last November by the state's GOP-controlled Legislature contains just one majority-Black district out of seven total districts—the illegal result, civil rights advocates argued successfully in a lawsuit filed in federal district court, of "packing" most Black voters into a single district and "cracking" others across multiple districts. To date, no Black candidate in Alabama has ever won in a majority-white congressional district.

A trio of federal judges—including two appointed by former President Donald Trump—unanimously sided with the plaintiffs, ruling that Alabama's recently adopted congressional map unconstitutionally denies equal representation and likely violates Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act (VRA) by diminishing Black voters' ability to elect candidates of their choice.

As two of the plaintiffs—Evan Milligan and Khadidah Stone—wrote Monday in Slate:

After reviewing our arguments, the three judges agreed that Alabama's map discriminates by giving white voters—who are 63% of the population—total control over 86% of Alabama's congressional seats. The judges ordered Alabama to adopt a new map that respects the state's redistricting goals and contains two "opportunity districts" where Black voters' preferred candidates have a fair chance to compete for votes.

Many potential maps were shown to state officials to address this. But Alabama simply ignored them, instead appealing our win to the Supreme Court of the United States. SCOTUS then stayed the lower court's decision without full briefing or argument, and without addressing the district court's powerful finding of discrimination. This decision—which underscores the problematic nature of making such momentous decisions on the court's "shadow docket"—means that these midterm elections will continue to be tainted by a discriminatory map that dilutes Black voting power.

As the deeply unpopular high court takes up Merrill v. Milligan, the plaintiffs outlined "how Alabama plans to pursue victory in a case it could not win at home."

"First, Alabama claims that the VRA is unconstitutional as applied to congressional districts," wrote Milligan and Stone. "Second, Alabama is arguing that any use of race in redistricting is per se unconstitutional."

"Alabama is calling our plans discriminatory merely because our experts set out to show it is possible to draw two majority-Black districts," the pair continued. "The problem is that the Constitution does allow, and sometimes requires, legislatures to intentionally draw districts that recognize or protect communities of color."

Milligan and Stone warned that "a ruling that forces state and local governments to disregard race in map-drawing would have devastating effects on electoral representation."

In 2017, the Supreme Court ruled 5-3 that maps drawn by North Carolina Republicans in 2011 misused racial data and amounted to unconstitutional racial gerrymanders in two congressional districts. Just two years later, however, right-wing justices condoned partisan gerrymandering, contending that the practice is beyond the high court's purview.

Given that Black voters overwhelmingly support Democratic candidates, it can be difficult to disentangle racial gerrymandering from partisan gerrymandering, which is why progressives have long argued that the Supreme Court's refusal to outlaw the latter could effectively legalize the former.

That long-standing fear is relevant to the case now before the Supreme Court.

"If the court sides with Alabama," warned Milligan and Stone, "states would be free to ignore and divide communities of color and could even eliminate many existing minority opportunity districts so long as a state could conjure up a purportedly nonracial excuse for its actions."

"If this happens," they added, "political opportunities for people of color will disappear."

While the VRA has facilitated the participation of voters and elected officials of color nationwide, Chief Justice John Roberts' court has spent the past decade gutting the landmark civil rights law, beginning with anti-discrimination protections in 2013.

During Tuesday's hearing, liberal Justice Elena Kagan summarized the high court's recent assaults on the VRA. If the court's right-wing majority uses the Alabama case as an occasion to dismantle Section 2 provisions against the dilution of minority voters' electoral power, she asked, "what's left" of the law?

"We need representatives who are sensitive to the needs of Black communities, who can have a positive material impact by gaining equal investment, equal funding, and equal resources for Black communities in Alabama and those most adjacent to them," Milligan said last week in a statement.

"We're concerned that without protections from Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act," he added, "redistricting will be weaponized to strip Black communities of fair representation, and thus deny them equal access to resources and an equal voice in government."

Since Trump's loss in the 2020 presidential contest, GOP-controlled states have intensified their efforts to enact voter suppression laws and redraw congressional and state legislative maps in ways that disenfranchise Democratic-leaning communities of color and give Republicans outsized representation, which could help them cement minority rule for at least a decade.

Lindsay Langholz, director of policy and program at the American Constitution Society, said last week that "due in part to this court's open hostility to voting rights, we find ourselves in the midst of democracy's moment of truth."

"Will we continue to slide toward autocracy or forge a truly multiracial democracy?" she asked. "The decision in Merrill v. Milligan will help determine that future, with the potential to either foster or frustrate meaningful political representation for communities of color in this country."

Merrill v. Milligan is not the only case concerning the future of U.S. democracy that the high court has agreed to hear this term.

Also on the docket is Moore v. Harper, which threatens to give state legislatures—many of them highly unrepresentative due to rampant gerrymandering—virtually unchecked power to oversee and potentially skew federal elections.

"If both these cases go badly, it's not that America will stop having elections," Vox legal reporter Ian Millhiser wrote last week. "But the power to decide how elections are conducted—which ballots are counted, where district lines are drawn, and potentially even who is certified as the winner of an election—could rest with increasingly partisan officials, including the justices themselves."

That the nation's chief judicial body has agreed to hear such appeals at all, said Thedford, "is further proof that it has been hijacked by out-of-control political appointees with an undemocratic agenda."

"If Congress fails to stop them," he added, "they will continue to erode our democracy and our fundamental freedoms until we no longer recognize the country we live in."

This article originally appeared at CommonDreams.org. Originally published on October 4th, 2022.  

Related Posts

In 'Dangerous Decision,' Supreme Court Guts Protection of Miranda Rights

2022 Mid-term election spending on track to top $9.3 billion

Right-Wing Justices Appear Ready to Eviscerate Affirmative Action in College Admissions, Kenny Stancil

Please support and visit 

The BROOKS BLACKBOARD's website,  our INTEL page, OPEN MIND page,  and LIKE and FOLLOW our Facebook page.

Follow me on Twitter at @_CharlesBrooks   

In 'Dangerous Decision,' Supreme Court Guts Protection of Miranda Rights

JULIA CONLEY

June 23, 2022

Legals experts warned law enforcement agencies will have "zero incentive" to ensure that a person being arrested is read their Miranda rights after the U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday handed down a ruling the ACLU characterized as a "dangerous" assault on long-established protections.

"The warnings mandated by the Supreme Court in Miranda have been part of the fabric of law enforcement interactions with the public for more than 60 years."

Right-Wing Supreme Court Takes Up Challenge to Affirmative Action

"We will vigorously defend access and opportunity in higher education," said head of civil rights legal group.

JESSICA CORBETT

January 24, 2022

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday agreed to hear a pair of affirmative action cases related to college admissions, giving its right-wing supermajority an opportunity to strike down race-conscious selection policies in higher education.

"Without programs like affirmative action, my whole life could have gone in an entirely different direction."

Both cases, taking aim at the policies of Harvard and the University of North Carolina, were brought by Students for Fair Admissions, a group founded by the conservative legal strategist Edward Blum. The high court has consolidated the cases.

Though the Supreme Court has previously allowed affirmative action policies to stand—most recently in 2016—the current makeup of the court is fueling concerns about a new course, whether the case is heard during this or the next term.

As writer and podcaster Touré tweeted in response to the decision: "RIP affirmative action."

Slate staff writer Mark Joseph Stern, who covers the U.S. legal system, pointed out that "like so many other grants this term, the affirmative action cases illustrate how Republicans have outsourced large chunks of their agenda to the federal judiciary and the Supreme Court, which now serves as the nation's most powerful policymaking body."

"Rather than expend time and energy prohibiting affirmative action through the democratic process," he added, "Republicans captured a sufficient portion of the federal judiciary—including the Supreme Court—to ensure that their judges will do it for them."

Democrats now control both chambers of Congress and the White House, but during former President Donald Trump's tenure, he and then-Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) worked to reshape the federal judiciary with more than 200 appointees, including Supreme Court Justices Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett.

NPR's Nina Totenberg noted that "starting in 1978, the Supreme Court has upheld the constitutionality of affirmative action programs three times. In each of these cases, the court's controlling opinion was authored by a traditionally conservative justice."

However, she explained, "three of the justices who voted against affirmative action in 2016—Chief Justice John Roberts, and Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito—are still on the court, and they now have been joined by three Trump-appointed conservatives."

Both Harvard and UNC won in federal trial courts, and the former's case was affirmed by an appeals court. The New York Times' Adam Liptak highlighted the potential significance of the nation's highest court deciding to take up both challenges:

The Supreme Court's decision to hear both cases may have been influenced by the differing legal regimes that apply to the two schools. Harvard, a private entity, must comply with a federal statute that bans race discrimination as a condition of receiving federal money; the University of North Carolina, which is public, must also satisfy the Constitution's equal protection clause.

Warning that the court's upcoming decision "could have a wide-ranging effect," HuffPost editor-in-chief Danielle Belton shared in a series of tweets Monday how affirmative action made a difference for her father's aerospace career and their family.

"There is this mistake people make when talking about affirmative action, that it 'rewards' unqualified people based on their race," Belton wrote. "This couldn't be further from the truth. It merely opens a historically closed door to level an uneven playing field."

"Race-conscious admissions policies are a critical tool that ensures students of color are not overlooked in a process that does not typically value their determination, accomplishments, and immense talents."

"How could my father compete with a system that rewarded nepotism and protected only those who'd always had access to power? The reality is, even with a college degree, he couldn't. Affirmative action had to happen," she continued.

"Because my father was able to have his career in aerospace, he could afford a home and raise a family alongside my mother. He could get us into good public schools and put all his daughters through college, leading to our future successes," Belton added. "Without programs like affirmative action, my whole life could have gone in an entirely different direction."

The Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law represents Harvard and UNC students and alumni who helped defend their policies. The group's president and executive director, Damon Hewitt, vowed to keep up the fight in a statement Monday.

"Selective universities like Harvard and UNC-Chapel Hill have long struggled to admit students of color, who have over time been excluded for access to elite institutions and are historically marginalized," Hewitt said. "Race-conscious admissions policies are a critical tool that ensures students of color are not overlooked in a process that does not typically value their determination, accomplishments, and immense talents."

"We will vigorously defend access and opportunity in higher education," he added, "alongside a diverse coalition of students of color, including our incredible clients whose testimony about their experiences on campus served as the cornerstone for the lower courts' favorable decisions in both of these cases."

NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund (LDF) president and director-counsel Sherrilyn Ifill similarly asserted Monday that "holistic, race-conscious admissions programs" not only enable universities to "bring together people of different backgrounds to learn from one other" but also "help mitigate systemic barriers to educational opportunities faced by many Black students and other students of color, ensuring that all hard-working and qualified applicants receive due consideration."

"Further, the court's decision today comes amidst the backdrop of widespread efforts to erase and deny the experiences of people of color," Ifill said. "As our country experiences a resurgence of white supremacy, it is as important now as ever before that our future leaders be educated in a learning environment that exposes them to the rich diversity that our country has to offer, so they may be fully prepared for the many challenges ahead."

This post has been updated with comment from the NAACP LDF.

This article originally appeared at CommonDreams.org. Originally published on January 25th, 2022. It is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. 

Please support and visit The Brooks Blackboard's website, our INTEL page, OPEN MIND page, and LIKE and FOLLOW our Facebook page.

Follow me on Twitter at @_CharlesBrooks