contributions to your pbs
station from viewers like you.
Thank you.
♪♪
amna: Welcome to "The newshour."
The U.S. Supreme court today
dealt a major blow to
affirmative action in higher
education, striking down
race-conscious admissions
programs at Harvard university
and the university of north
Carolina.
Geoff: In rulings divided along
ideological lines, the court's
six-justice conservative
majority said the schools
discriminated against white and
asian-american applicants by
using race-conscious policies
that benefited students from
underrepresented backgrounds.
Chief justice John Roberts, who
has long been skeptical of such
policies, authored the majority
opinion.
He wrote, "Many universities
have concluded, wrongly, that
the touchstone of an
individual's identity is not
challenges bested, skills built,
or lessons learned, but the
color of their skin.
Our constitutional history does
not tolerate that choice."
Amna: This afternoon at the
white house, president Joe Biden
criticized the rulings and said
the country cannot abandon its
pursuit of a more equal system
of higher education.
President Biden: I know today's
court decision is a severe
disappointment to so many
people, including me.
But we cannot let the decision
be a permanent setback for the
country.
We need to keep an open door of
opportunities.
Geoff: We start our coverage
tonight with "Newshour" supreme
court analyst Marcia Coyle.
It's great to have you here.
Wehould say the ruling was not
unexpected.
But as recently as 2016, they
upheld rulings.
Help us understand how this
ruling appends decades of
precedents.
>> There has been of fundamental
divide on the constitutionality
of race preferences.
Can services -- conservatives
believe it is unconstitutional.
The court has said that it is
one of the very few reasons the
court will allow race
preferences.
It today up and did what it has
done for many decades.
Geoff: Chief justice Roberts
notes and should be construed as
prohibiting consideration of
race.
So some have taken it to mean an
applicant can write an essay
about how race has affected
their life but how does the use
of affirmative action run afoul
of the constitution?
>> They cannot use it as a
factor in admissions.
It cannot be a dominant factor
or the determinant factor.
It cannot be used in a negative
way.
But the court did sort of leave
the door open on everyone will
have to wait to see how this
plays out to admissions
applications or essays in which
an applicant discusses how race
really affected their life,
whether inspirational or not.
Geoff: Justice Jackson recused
herself from the Harvard case
but participated in the north
Carolina case and she wrote a
scathing dissent, part of which
reads this, "With
let-them-eat-cake 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."
Tell us more about what she
wrote come along with justice so
the so I are.
>> There is nothing in the 14th
amendment that prohibits race
conscious measures and they both
oppose the idea of a colorblind
constitution.
This is something justice Thomas
has advocated for decades.
Justice Jackson used her dissent
to specifically address how the
university of North Carolina
admission policy worked and how
the policy has worked to the
benefit of everyone, not just
the students who get racial
preference and she also felt
that the court was ignoring the
facts of life on the ground in
order to impose the colorblind