What to know about the Supreme Court's affirmative action cases today The 5-Minute Fix author Amber Phillips is on parental leave, and Washington Post reporter and editor Paige Winfield Cunningham is out today (though you can still send her a note any time on what you'd like to see in this newsletter). Below, Caroline Anders brings you two of the day's biggest political stories. The Supreme Court heard two cases today about affirmative action, and whether private or public colleges are allowed to consider race as a factor in college admissions. What are the cases about?: Both cases (one challenging the University of North Carolina, one challenging Harvard University) were brought by the group Students for Fair Admissions. The case against Harvard alleges the school's policy discriminates against Asian Americans, while the one against UNC says the school discriminated against White and Asian American applicants. The court could duck the broader question and rule instead on whether the schools violated the Civil Rights Act, but that scenario is less likely. Many experts and court-watchers expect these cases to end affirmative action. The Washington Post's Ann E. Marimow put together a great explainer on the cases, which you can read in full here. But here's a quick rundown: The sides: - The universities say they need affirmative action to keep building diverse student bodies. They argue that if they are not permitted to consider race, enrollment by minorities could decline dramatically.
- Students for Fair Admissions, run by conservative activist Richard Blum, says the universities put too much weight on race, which Blum argues is a form of discrimination. His group also says that the nation can't fix past harms using affirmative action.
The background: Nine states already ban the consideration of race in public university admissions, and several large public universities in other states also say they don't consider race. The court upheld using race in admissions in 2003 and 2016, saying that the benefits of a diverse student body justify some intrusion on the Constitution's general ban on the government making decisions based on race. What's expected: The court now has a solid 6-3 conservative majority, which could be bad news for affirmative action. In today's hearings, the court's conservative justices seemed skeptical of past Supreme Court rulings allowing race to be considered. Public opinion: Most Americans (more than 6 in 10) don't think colleges should consider race during the admissions process. But that seems at odds with their responses to another question in the same poll: A similar majority also say that programs designed to increase the racial diversity of college students are a good thing. (One expert on the topic told The Post that the poll's results suggest the public craves some kind of middle path.) Has Biden weighed in? The Biden administration is supportive of affirmative action and is backing the universities. Solicitor General Elizabeth B. Prelogar, who is Biden's top advocate at the court, argued today that a ban on affirmative action would have implications stretching beyond education. It could shrink the diversity of recruiting pipelines for the military and many other employers, she warned. What happens next?: The justices will deliberate after today's arguments, but we likely won't know what they've decided until late June or early July. What we know about the attack on Paul Pelosi What happened: On Friday, a man wielding a hammer attacked the husband of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) in the couple's San Francisco home. The assailant was apparently searching for the speaker when he broke into the house, shouting, "Where is Nancy?" (Nancy Pelosi was in Washington at the time of the attack.) The speaker's spokesperson said that Paul Pelosi, 82, is expected to make a full recovery. He was recovering in the hospital as of Monday, after surgery to repair a skull fracture and other injuries. What we know about the alleged attacker: The suspect in the attack, 42-year-old David DePape, was federally charged with assault and attempted kidnapping today. DePape appears to have been drawn deeply into political conspiracy theories, including those about Trump winning the 2020 election. He ran a blog "filled with deeply antisemitic writings and baseless claims," The Post's Adela Suliman reports, and screeds against Black people, the media and transgender people. What it could mean: Many on the left say the attack shows what happens when Republicans ramp up violent and threatening rhetoric toward their political opponents. The speaker has long been demonized by Republicans and was a target of Jan. 6, 2021 rioters, some of whom yelled "Where are you, Nancy?" as they roamed the halls of the U.S. Capitol. While many Republicans have condemned the attacks, some blame "both sides" of the aisle for political violence. Sen. Rick Scott (R-Fla.), chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, called the attack "disgusting" Sunday on CNN's "State of the Union." But when asked "whether Republicans should do more to reject dangerous rhetoric and conspiracy theories that fuel such attacks, Scott said the focus should be condemning violent attacks and ensuring election integrity," The Post's Amy B Wang and Molly Hennessy-Fiske report. The Post's Isaac Stanley-Becker reports that a wide range of far-right personalities (and new Twitter owner Elon Musk) have amplified misinformation about the attack, with many suggesting it was a "false flag." This effort to raise doubts about the attack shows how much some figures on the right want to seize on the event to promote conspiracy theories and provoke distrust. | 
Email
No comments:
Post a Comment