As Court Punts, Thomas Compares Arguments for Affirmative Action to Those for Slavery

But despite Thomas’ decision, affirmative action survives—for now.

<a href="">Pete Marovich</a>/ZumaPress

Let our journalists help you make sense of the noise: Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily newsletter and get a recap of news that matters.

Given the chance to shoot down affirmative action, the Supreme Court, in a 7-1 decision, chose not to (PDF). But it did say that a lower court decision that had approved the University of Texas’ affirmative action program needed to be revisited, with the justices in the majority noting that this appeals court had not applied a stringent enough rule when reviewing the UT program. In short, the court said: Affirmative action is indeed permissible, but only in instances when the public benefit is narrowly defined and justified—and there is strict scrutiny of such factors.

The decision is mostly about how the lower court handled the case, which involved a white student whose application to the college was denied. (For more background on the case see here.) The majority noted, “The reviewing court must ultimately be satisfied that no workable race-neutral alternatives would produce the educational benefits of diversity.” And the appeals court, it ruled, did not:

Rather than perform this searching examination, the Fifth Circuit held petitioner could challenge only whether the University’s decision to use race as an admissions factor “was made in good faith.” It presumed that the school had acted in good faith and gave petitioner the burden of rebutting that presumption.

In the moments after the decision was released, legal experts disagreed on how much impact it could have on the use of affirmative action at both public and private universities and colleges (though the case only directly applied to public institutions). But just as important, the court bypassed the opportunity to reverse previous rulings and eviscerate affirmative action.

That means it was a bad day for Justice Clarence Thomas. As he notes in a concurring opinion (that reads like a dissent), he wanted the court to “hold that a State’s use of race in higher education admissions is categorically prohibited by the Equal Protection Clause.” Thomas’ decision was longer than that of the majority opinion written by Justice Anthony Kennedy. He compared the arguments in favor of affirmative action to those used to support segregation in years bygone, calling them “virtually identical” to the contentions the court rejected to undo segregation. He declared, “The use of race has little to do with the alleged educational benefits of diversity.” And he went as far as you would expect, noting that “Slaveholders argued that slavery was a ‘positive good’ that civilized blacks and elevated them in every dimension of life.” Yes, Thomas compared the justification of affirmative action to the justification for slavery. And he asserted that affirmative action harms white and Asian American students denied admission but actually causes more harm to those admitted under such programs: “Blacks and Hispanics admitted to the University as a result of racial discrimination are, on average, far less prepared than their white and Asian classmates.”

Thomas’ opinion was a cry of the heart against affirmative action—and a cry of frustration. Juxtaposed against such an extreme rant, the majority opinion looked rather moderate.


Headshot of Editor in Chief of Mother Jones, Clara Jeffery

It sure feels that way to me, and here at Mother Jones, we’ve been thinking a lot about what journalism needs to do differently, and how we can have the biggest impact.

We kept coming back to one word: corruption. Democracy and the rule of law being undermined by those with wealth and power for their own gain. So we're launching an ambitious Mother Jones Corruption Project to do deep, time-intensive reporting on systemic corruption, and asking the MoJo community to help crowdfund it.

We aim to hire, build a team, and give them the time and space needed to understand how we got here and how we might get out. We want to dig into the forces and decisions that have allowed massive conflicts of interest, influence peddling, and win-at-all-costs politics to flourish.

It's unlike anything we've done, and we have seed funding to get started, but we're looking to raise $500,000 from readers by July when we'll be making key budgeting decisions—and the more resources we have by then, the deeper we can dig. If our plan sounds good to you, please help kickstart it with a tax-deductible donation today.

Thanks for reading—whether or not you can pitch in today, or ever, I'm glad you're with us.

Signed by Clara Jeffery

Clara Jeffery, Editor-in-Chief

payment methods

We Recommend