Vice President Kamala Harris recently lauded Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson’s dissents, branding them “brilliant” in light of a pivotal ruling that struck down affirmative action in college admissions. This has stirred intense discourse in academic and legal circles, with many experts pushing back against Harris’s perspective. Jackson’s dissent critiques the Court’s decision and is portrayed as insightful by some, yet heavily criticized by others who view her arguments as lacking a firm constitutional foundation.
Harris encouraged Americans to engage with Jackson’s judicial reasoning, especially following the Court’s ruling that ended race-based admissions policies at Harvard and the University of North Carolina. “Read her dissents. They are BRILLIANT,” she urged, framing Jackson’s critique as vital in countering what she termed a dangerous reduction in equitable opportunity across America.
Yet, Harris’s endorsement contrasts starkly with reactions from legal scholars and even some members of the Supreme Court. Critics have pointed out that Jackson’s dissent did not align with the Constitution’s text or precedents. One tweet noted that even her fellow justices have criticized her understanding of fundamental constitutional principles.
The Supreme Court’s 6-3 decision underscored that admissions practices which factor race violate the Equal Protection Clause. Chief Justice John Roberts articulated that these programs fail to demonstrate clear goals justifying the use of race. In his view, such practices operate in a prejudicial manner. Similarly, Justice Clarence Thomas contended that race-based admissions perpetuate stereotypes and hinder recognition of individual merit, calling such policies fundamentally flawed.
In her dissent, Jackson argued for the necessity of considering race to combat established inequalities. She suggested that disregarding race would only entrench existing disparities, referring to the majority’s stance as “ostrich-like.” Critics argue that her approach leans more towards emotional rhetoric and statistical generalizations rather than the legal reasoning expected at this level of jurisprudence. Justice Thomas highlighted this divergence, noting that her opinion “is not grounded in constitutional text or precedent.”
The litigation at the heart of this ruling originated from Students for Fair Admissions, which challenged Harvard and UNC for allegedly discriminatory admission practices against Asian-American applicants. The outcome required future admissions policies to be fundamentally “colorblind,” generating a potentially transformative impact on college campuses across the nation.
Jackson’s dissent included statistical evidence to support her stance, suggesting her arguments appeared to rely more on social science than on the Constitution. One analyst remarked that her failure to connect her reasoning directly to constitutional principles is telling: “It’s stunning, not brilliant.”
Justice Sonia Sotomayor also dissented, voicing concern that this ruling would exacerbate existing inequalities. She explicitly called out the Court for undermining the constitutional guarantee of equal protection under the law. Harris and President Biden echoed this sentiment, with Harris labeling the ruling a “denial of opportunity” and Biden arguing that the Court’s actions ignore both legal tradition and public sentiment.
Supporters of the ruling, including former President Donald Trump, view the decision positively, applauding it as a return to a fairer merit-based admissions process. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell supported this stance, asserting that admissions should reflect individual merit rather than racial identity.
In the wake of the ruling, universities are reviewing their admissions frameworks. While the majority opinion prohibits using race categorically, it still allows for the consideration of applicants’ life experiences in non-discriminatory ways. The Court emphasized that admissions processes are inherently competitive, where benefits given to some applicants disadvantage others.
Higher education leaders worry that this ruling may lead to decreased minority enrollment in top-tier institutions. Historical data from California indicates a significant drop in Black and Hispanic students following a similar ban on affirmative action in 1996, a trend administrators dread may recur nationally.
Critics of race-based admissions argue that the method was fundamentally flawed from the beginning. As one comment pointed out, “If diversity matters, let’s find ways to support that without sorting children by melanin.” They insist this ruling compels educational institutions to address systemic issues within K-12 education, ensuring all students are qualified for higher learning, not just those admitted under relaxed standards.
Despite Harris’s unwavering admiration for Jackson and a push to maintain the essence of affirmative action, the legal environment around race-based policies is shifting. While compliance with the ruling is necessary, Washington officials seem intent on finding alternatives to preserve affirmative action’s spirit in a legal framework that now prohibits it.
U.S. Secretary of Education Miguel Cardona stated, “Despite today’s decision, we will continue to work to ensure that every student has the opportunity to learn and thrive — and to attend college.”
The legal and political battle surrounding race in education is far from over. While the Supreme Court has rendered its verdict, the divide remains stark. Some advocate for a colorblind approach to equality, while others perceive the need for race-conscious policies. With Vice President Harris championing a justice whose views are under scrutiny, the debate is likely to intensify rather than abate.
"*" indicates required fields
