JUDY WOODRUFF: Two far-reaching cases for the U.S. Supreme Court today have the potential
to overturn years of precedent.
The question for the justices, whether colleges should be allowed to take race into account
when deciding which students to admit.
John Yang has the story.
JOHN YANG: Judy, past Supreme Court decisions have said that colleges can use race as one
of many factors in admissions, as long as they don't use quotas or don't give applicants
any rigid, categorical benefit based solely on race.
The plaintiffs in today's cases are asking the justices to rule that any consideration
of race is unconstitutional.
Today's oral arguments were a marathon, lasting nearly five hours.
And in the courtroom for all of it, Marcia Coyle, chief Washington correspondent for
"The National Law Journal."
Marcia, congratulations on surviving that.
(LAUGHTER)
MARCIA COYLE, "The National Law Journal": It was a tough job, very tough.
(LAUGHTER)
JOHN YANG: The justices, the conservative justices seemed very skeptical on a number
of points, number one, what diversity means, how long affirmative action would have to
be in place.
Let's listen to Chief Justice John Roberts on that point.
JOHN ROBERTS, Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court: I don't see how you can say that the
program will ever end.
Your position is that race matters because it's necessary for diversity, which is necessary
for the sort of education you want.
It's not going to stop mattering at some particular point.
You're always going to have to look at race, because you say race matters to give us the
necessary diversity.
JOHN YANG: Why is this significant?
MARCIA COYLE: Well, it certainly was on the minds of several of the conservative justices.
It was a question that almost dominated the questioning today: When will it end?
In 2003, in the Supreme Court decision upholding the use of race in the admissions policies
of the University of Michigan Law School, Justice O'Connor, who wrote the majority opinion,
said that she expected that, in 25 years, affirmative action in higher education would
no longer be needed.
So that would make 2028 the deadline.
And that's what very much on the justices' minds.
Is that a fixed deadline, or, as some of the advocates supporting the and representing
the universities claimed it was more aspirational?
So, we heard, when will it end?
And how will we measure it if you say it ends or has an end?
How can -- how do you put it into words?
And the lawyer for the United States said, you really can't reduce it to a number, that
it's going to depend on the benefits that have been achieved by racial diversity in
the student body.
JOHN YANG: And the conservative justices kept asking for numbers.
MARCIA COYLE: Yes, they did.
They kept asking for a number.
And even Justice Clarence Thomas, as you pointed out, was saying, I keep hearing about diversity.
Well, I don't have a clue what diversity means.
And he pressed as well for, what are the educational benefits exactly, specifically of diversity?
So they gave them a real run for their money, those who were defending the affirmative action
admissions policies.
JOHN YANG: And the liberal justices, on the other hand, seemed to be trying to make the
point that race was not the only factor being considered, but one of many.
This is Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson.
KETANJI BROWN JACKSON, U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice: You keep saying we object
to the use of race standing alone.
But as I read the record and understand their process, it's never standing alone, that it's
in the context of all of the other factors.
There are 40 factors about all sorts of things that the admissions office is looking at.
And you haven't demonstrated or shown one situation in which all they look at is race.
JOHN YANG: And the liberal justices also made the point that the effects of affirmative
action go beyond the campus.
MARCIA COYLE: This was very much on the minds of some of those justices, like Justice Elena
Kagan.
She pointed out that there's been experience in other universities where, when they stopped
considering race, there was a precipitous drop in underrepresented minorities on campus.
And that then had almost a domino effect, because you have the military wanting to recruit
often from ROTCs in campus.
And they have written and said that they want to build a diverse officer corps, as the rank
and file tend to be diverse.
And she also pointed out that it could affect every area, corporate America, law, medical,
science, that all of these industries and institutions depend on a diverse pipeline,
so that they can be diverse as well.
JOHN YANG: And there was also a lot of discussion or debate, actually, over the meaning of Brown
vs. Board of Education, the 1954 landmark ruling that ended desegregated public schools.
MARCIA COYLE: Yes, it was hard to believe we're still talking about that at this in
this day and age.
The challengers to the university programs believe that Brown vs. Board of Education
said that all racial classifications are unconstitutional.
And so this 2003 Grutter decision that the court's looking to possibly overrule is inconsistent
with Brown and should be overruled.
On the other hand, that view of Brown vs. Board of Education is hotly contested by civil
rights groups and others, who say, no.
In fact, the U.S. solicitor general pointed out there's a world of difference between
what the court confronted in Brown, which was the separation of children by race, and
what colleges are doing here, which is not to exclude, but to try to include.
JOHN YANG: And there was also some discussion, the court now, this conservative majority,
with their approach on originalism, how constitutional rights fit into the history and traditions
in America, and how this fits in this case.
MARCIA COYLE: This is also an ongoing debate on the court.
And Justice Kagan raised it.
She asked, well, what would an originalist think about what the colleges are doing here
in terms of the 14th Amendment?
And there is the view -- and I think Justice Kagan and Justice Jackson and some of the
others on the left side of the court believe that what is being done here is consistent
with the history, the post-ratification of the 14th Amendment, which did have race-conscious
legislation and activities.
JOHN YANG: Marcia Coyle, thank you very much.
MARCIA COYLE: Pleasure, John.
JUDY WOODRUFF: And we thank you, John.
And, in California, we should say, colleges have been prohibited from considering race
in admissions since 1996.
But, as John reported for us recently, the University of California has worked to create
a diverse student body despite the ban.
You may watch that story online at PBS.org/NewsHour.