The End of Affirmative Action. For Real This Time.

Speaker 1 You're cut from a different cloth.

Speaker 1 And with Bank of America Private Bank, you have an entire team tailored to your needs with wealth and business strategies built for the biggest ambitions, like yours.

Speaker 1 Whatever your passion, unlock more powerful possibilities at privatebank.bankofamerica.com. What would you like the power to do? Bank of America, official bank of the FIFA World Cup 2026.

Speaker 1 Bank of America Private Bank is a division of Bank of America NA member FDIC and a wholly owned subsidiary of Bank of America Corporation.

Speaker 2 This episode is brought to you by Progressive Insurance. Fiscally responsible, financial geniuses, monetary magicians.

Speaker 2 These are things people say about drivers who switch their car insurance to Progressive and save hundreds. Visit progressive.com to see if you could save.

Speaker 2 Progressive Casualty Insurance Company and affiliates. Potential savings will vary, not available in all states or situations.

Speaker 2 A lot of attacks on higher education admissions, particularly at these highly selective institutions, gain traction, and that's because they're such black boxes.

Speaker 2 You think about what these institutions sort of bestow on students in terms of the prestige that they have on the back end, and the fact that on the front end you have this sort of black box in terms of how people get into them.

Speaker 2 There are seats that people want to get to because they know the potential benefits. All but one of the Supreme Court justices attended either Harvard or Yale's law school.

Speaker 3 I can never get over that. I mean, just honestly, I just find that just unbelievable.
Like it's so specific.

Speaker 3 The Supreme Court is about to issue a set of rulings on affirmative action and higher education, which is a big deal.

Speaker 3 Because if it goes the way we expect, it could change how universities decide who to admit and therefore who gets what kinds of opportunities in life. Like, for example, being a Supreme Court justice.

Speaker 3 Now, these cases have been kicking around for almost a decade, and here are the basics.

Speaker 3 They were brought by a conservative group of activists called Students for Fair Admissions, one against a private university, Harvard, and one against a public one, UNC.

Speaker 3 The plaintiffs are Asian Americans who say affirmative action is shutting them out, which adds some complications.

Speaker 3 And the cases would overturn a 2003 decision allowing some affirmative action and do away with it for good.

Speaker 3 But I realized only recently that I'm a little hazy on some pretty important things, like how universities have been using affirmative action all these years and how really, no matter what the Supreme Court decides, the backlash kind of already has the upper hand.

Speaker 3 So to understand this latest pair of cases, we need to get clear on a pattern that's been going on since the 60s.

Speaker 3 And in this episode, we're going to talk to Adam Harris, a staff writer who covers higher education for the Atlantic. Hi, Adam.

Speaker 2 Hey, how's it going? Good.

Speaker 3 Okay, Adam. So what is the fundamental question the Supreme Court is considering?

Speaker 2 So the big question in these cases, which has effectively been the big question in all of the race-conscious admissions cases, is whether or not institutions can use race in the admission of their students.

Speaker 3 You know, when I hear that question, I tend to make some assumptions.

Speaker 3 Like a basic one is that universities do use race as a deciding factor in admissions and that it is an important tool for racial justice.

Speaker 2 Aaron Ross Powell,

Speaker 2 sort of. They use race and admissions in a limited way, and they can never use it as the deciding factor.

Speaker 2 In fact, the only rationale allowed by the court is to increase diversity in the student body, which is very different from trying to atone for a legacy of discrimination.

Speaker 2 And some states have already banned the use of of affirmative action entirely, like California and Michigan.

Speaker 3 Which is what the Supreme Court might do nationally, right?

Speaker 2 Yes. And after those states banned affirmative action, we saw the number of black students enrolled at their universities drop dramatically.

Speaker 3 You know, I read your book and various other things that you sent me. It's my homework.
And mostly what I discovered is that I had fundamentally misunderstood

Speaker 3 what we talk about when we talk about affirmative action and its connection to racial justice.

Speaker 3 So, one of the things I want to talk to you about is how did we get here? How did we arrive at this point?

Speaker 2 Yeah, so affirmative action, race-conscious admissions, kind of first came into the lexicon in the 1960s as a way to fix some of that harm that had been done from legalized segregation in higher education.

Speaker 2 If you looked across the landscape, there were all of these, you know, really minute ways that institutions had segregated and discriminated against students.

Speaker 2 And so in the 1960s and 70s, institutions started to create programs that would help enhance their black enrollment. Typically, it was their black enrollment.

Speaker 2 And some of this, of course, was under their own volition.

Speaker 2 And some of this was because in 1965, you get the Higher Education Act, you get some of the civil rights laws that are effectively saying, if you are a program or anything that is receiving federal funding and you are discriminating against people, you will have that federal funding revoked.

Speaker 2 And so they were trying to figure out ways to build out their black population that they have been keeping down for so long.

Speaker 3 Okay, so affirmative action began as this civil rights era project in all kinds of universities around the country.

Speaker 3 But I guess the thing that really struck me in doing my homework for this episode about the current Supreme Court cases is that affirmative action, as I understood it, it barely makes it out of that era.

Speaker 2 Aaron Powell, yeah, you know, at the time, right, we've seen the civil rights movement, we've seen the advances that had been made, and those were met with a, perhaps we're going too far into the, we're discriminating against other people by trying to address this past harm.

Speaker 2 Effectively, they're trying to kill this program in the cradle before it even has a chance to make a dent in that discrimination.

Speaker 3 Aaron Powell, so the backlash moment happens pretty much right away. But what happens that kills affirmative action in the cradle?

Speaker 2 So what happens is a Supreme Court decision in the 1970s known as Bakke.

Speaker 5 First case on today's calendar is number 76811, Regents of the University of California against Bakke.

Speaker 2 So Alan Bakke is a white veteran who is trying to get into medical school. He's in his early 30s, which at the time people thought was a little bit too old to first enroll in medical school, but he

Speaker 2 has these credentials that he thinks should really benefit him. He's worked at effectively a NASA hub for a little bit.

Speaker 2 And so he applies to several schools, including the University of California at Davis's Medical School.

Speaker 5 From the very beginning of this lawsuit, he stated the case in terms of the fact that he had twice applied and twice he had been refused, both in the years 1973 and in the year 1974.

Speaker 3 So if he was rejected from all these schools, why does he sue UC Davis?

Speaker 2 So Baki gets a tip from an insider at the university who tells him, hey, we have this admissions program that allots 16 seats that were effectively designated for students who were from insular minority groups.

Speaker 2 And perhaps one of the reasons that you didn't get into this 100-person class is because of one of those 16 seats.

Speaker 3 Okay, so we're at October of 1977. Bakke's case is now before the Supreme Court.
How do the justices respond?

Speaker 2 Well, there's this great moment with Thurgood Marshall, who, of course, had argued Brown v. Board of Education and was now a justice on the court.

Speaker 5 Your client did compete for the 84 seats, didn't he? Yes, he did. And he lost.
Yes, he did. Now, would your argument be the same

Speaker 5 if one instead of 16 seats were left open?

Speaker 5 Most respectfully, the argument does not turn on the numbers.

Speaker 2 It was one of those times where you almost hear him being sort of sarcastic in his questioning, right? When he's really needling Backy's lawyer and saying, so it depends on which way you look at it.

Speaker 2 And he's like, well, yes, it does.

Speaker 2 It does, right?

Speaker 5 The numbers are

Speaker 5 unimportant. It is the principle of keeping a man out because because of his race that is important.

Speaker 5 You're arguing about keeping somebody out,

Speaker 5 and the other side is arguing about getting somebody in. That's right.
So it depends on which way you look at it, doesn't it? It depends on which way you look at it. The problem is.
It does.

Speaker 5 The problem is.

Speaker 5 If I may finish. It does.
The problem. The problem is.
You talk about your clients' rights. Don't these underprivileged people have some rights? They certainly have the rights to compete.
To eat cake.

Speaker 5 They have the right to compete.

Speaker 2 They have the right right to. This is a very,

Speaker 2 why are we here arguing about this when just

Speaker 2 two decades ago, I was before this very court trying to get students into segregated elementary schools. Like we just had this debate.

Speaker 2 We just had this argument about this historical discrimination, this ongoing discrimination. Why are you back in front of me arguing that we've gone too far when we've only just started?

Speaker 2 You know, when Marshall says you're talking about your clients' rights, don't these underprivileged folks have rights too, he's pointing to all of the different ways that higher education had discriminated against black people.

Speaker 2 And so I think he's pointing to the fact that there is a harm that needs to be addressed, a past harm that needs to be addressed, and these people should have the rights to have that harm addressed.

Speaker 3 That's what he means by don't underprivileged people have the right. He's basically trying to frame a purpose for affirmative action that is redressing past wrongs.

Speaker 2 Exactly, as a remedy for past discrimination.

Speaker 3 And so where do the justices land? What ends up being the outcome?

Speaker 2 Aaron Ross Powell, so the outcome is sort of

Speaker 2 a bargain of sorts.

Speaker 2 It is ultimately what becomes known as the diversity rationale or the diversity bargain.

Speaker 2 So as opposed to the original conception of affirmative action where they were trying to provide some redress for historical discrimination.

Speaker 2 This case effectively says, look, we can't hold students nowadays, white students nowadays, accountable for what happened in the past.

Speaker 2 And to provide additional seats or to set aside seats for certain classes of students, that would be an impermissible benefit for those students because it would be harming or potentially alienating those white students who otherwise may have been able to get into it.

Speaker 2 And so the court ultimately says, look,

Speaker 2 we do think that it's important to use race and admissions because we think that diverse classes are important for the benefit of all students, right?

Speaker 2 So the use of race and admissions goes from being a tool to address historical discrimination to ultimately being this sort of amenity that was good for all students on campus.

Speaker 2 It was good for white students to interact with black students. It was good for black students to interact with Hispanic students, right?

Speaker 2 It was good for the entire student body as opposed to, you know, accounting for a legacy of discrimination.

Speaker 3 Interesting. So already, right away, affirmative action has one hand tied behind its back.
Like they don't ban it outright, but they won't use it.

Speaker 3 They won't let it be used as a tool for racial justice.

Speaker 3 It sounds like what they're saying is that essentially it has to work for the white students too.

Speaker 3 Like it can only exist if it makes the white students' lives better, which means the backlash kind of won.

Speaker 2 In some sense, it doesn't sort of wholly say that you have to eliminate the use of race altogether.

Speaker 2 It's saying that you can look at race in an admissions process, but only in concert with a host of other factors and never as the factor that decides whether a student gets in or does not.

Speaker 3 And then what I understood is that over the next many years in a series of court cases, the court leans in and sort of codifies this diversity bargain.

Speaker 2 Right. The Bakke decision was this very tenuous compromise.
It's It's not until 2003 that we actually get a majority of the Supreme Court validating affirmative action.

Speaker 2 And that comes in a case against the University of Michigan called Gruyter v. Bollinger.

Speaker 3 So the Michigan case is a win for advocates of affirmative action because it settles that as

Speaker 3 a rationale.

Speaker 3 But all it actually is doing is confirming the limited diversity bargain that we talked about.

Speaker 2 Exactly. If we think of redress for past discrimination as the entire pie, this case effectively salvaged that little slice of the pie that they actually ended up getting in Baki.

Speaker 2 And you even have Justice Sandra Day O'Connor sort of putting a timeline on the need for the use of race and admissions, effectively saying 25 years on from the end of this case, it may no longer be necessary to use race and admissions.

Speaker 3 So it's like, we're going to give you this tiny little tool, and this tiny little tool is going to solve the problem in 25 years. That was the logic of the court.
Exactly.

Speaker 3 Yeah, I mean when I started off saying I misunderstood something,

Speaker 3 I think that's what I misunderstood. The degree to which my thinking about this and what affirmative action was and the role it played in higher education had been colonized by this.
shrinking.

Speaker 3 Like I just am thinking about this in a small box that we're not even trying to, it's not even part of the effort to redress past wrongs anymore. And it has not been for a long, long time.

Speaker 2 Exactly.

Speaker 3 So what did happen? I mean, Sandra Day O'Connell had a vision for what happens 25 years down the road.

Speaker 3 What happened on the ground in states and in universities?

Speaker 2 So on the ground, you had a couple of different things that happened. You know, Michigan, of course, this was the state that did it, right?

Speaker 2 This was the state that protected the use of race and admissions.

Speaker 2 And just a couple of years later, Michigan voters ultimately proposed and voted on a ballot measure that would eliminate the use of race and admissions altogether.

Speaker 2 And very quickly, we saw what happens when an affirmative action program goes away.

Speaker 2 There was a precipitous decline in black enrollment at the University of Michigan from around 7% then to around the 4% that we regularly see today.

Speaker 3 I think I'm confused about something. If the Supreme Court ratified it, why were Michigan voters allowed to do that?

Speaker 2 So the Supreme Court effectively just said you can.

Speaker 3 But the voters have the right. The voters have the right.
So the ballot, I mean, the the ballot measure is essentially another data point in a history of backlash.

Speaker 2 Yes. Michigan, California, and nine states in total have banned the use of race and admission, either through their legislature or through public propositions.

Speaker 3 It's weird. It's like a double whammy.
Like we still talk about affirmative action as if it's trying to accomplish the same goals it did in the late 60s.

Speaker 2 And it never has. And it never has, exactly.

Speaker 3 So, yeah, it's sort of two hands tied behind its back. You mentioned the numbers dropping at the University of Michigan.
So it's down to 4%.

Speaker 2 Yeah, it hovers around 4% now.

Speaker 3 Wait, but in a state that is what percent black?

Speaker 2 Roughly 13% black.

Speaker 3 So it's well below.

Speaker 2 Well below.

Speaker 2 And if you look across the landscape, most public flagship institutions, so the big institution in the state, University of Texas, University of Michigan, University of Alabama, LSU, most institutions do not come close to meeting its public percentage of high school graduates in terms of their black enrollment.

Speaker 2 So if you look at a place like Auburn University, in 1985, Bo Jackson won the Heisman there as the best college football player in the country.

Speaker 2 And that same day, a federal judge said Auburn was the most segregated institution in the state of Alabama.

Speaker 2 If you fast forward to today, they have roughly the same percentage of black students now as they did in 1985.

Speaker 2 And so the sort of idea that we have around admission systems and who's getting in and how they're getting in, it's just very warped.

Speaker 3 It's so warped. Like listening to you say it, like, how could it have changed not at all from that moment, you know?

Speaker 2 Effectively, yeah. Yeah.

Speaker 3 And it's like these cases make it into the news and you have this sense that affirmative action is this incredibly powerful tool that has been transforming universities since the 60s. And it's not.

Speaker 3 It's like a teeny, tiny little scalpel, you know.

Speaker 2 Yeah, we had a brief period where it was a really aggressive tool. And then after Baki, that sort of went away.

Speaker 3 I mean, the way you're talking about it, it feels like we're rolling backwards.

Speaker 2 In a lot of ways, we are. You know, affirmative action, the use of race and admissions, of course, has not been perfect.
It hasn't been a, you know, remedy for past discrimination in higher ed.

Speaker 2 But it was a tool to sort of keep things where they were. If it goes away, there's a lot of concern that

Speaker 2 that tool is now gone and we know what happens. We have these precipitous declines when that tool goes away.

Speaker 3 This is a bad place to be because now we have to contemplate this actual decision that we're faced with.

Speaker 3 I mean, one of the pieces of homework you gave me was this conversation you recorded with Lee Bollinger.

Speaker 3 And for people who don't know who he is, Bollinger has been the president president of Columbia University for the past 20 years.

Speaker 3 But before that, he was the president of University of Michigan, which is why that 2003 opinion is called Gruyter v. Bollinger.
Anyway, you guys have this pretty depressing exchange.

Speaker 3 So I just want to play it.

Speaker 2 What happens to the texture of America's most selective higher education institutions if affirmative action goes away, if they're no longer allowed to use race and admissions.

Speaker 2 Aaron Powell, so I think we have to imagine what it's like to go back to a world before affirmative action.

Speaker 2 There was virtually no ethnic diversity, but no racial diversity, very few African Americans. And

Speaker 2 what does that look like in

Speaker 2 an America we know today? If our universities, our top universities, have a very small number of African Americans, that says a lot about not attending to it, especially since we spent 50 years really

Speaker 2 trying to change that and changing it.

Speaker 4 Some tech leaders question whether we're in an AI bubble, but others say the best of what AI has to offer is yet to come.

Speaker 4 Maybe in 10,000 years, AI will be based on physics that we don't even understand right now, and we'll have many different approaches.

Speaker 4 Join us weekly starting October 15th for the most interesting thing in AI.

Speaker 4 Brought to you by Rethink, the Atlantic's creative marketing studio in collaboration with PwC, wherever you get your podcasts.

Speaker 3 Okay, so

Speaker 3 that brings us back to the cases today.

Speaker 3 These cases have a slight twist because they involve the rights of Asian Americans, a group that's also been disenfranchised in certain ways.

Speaker 3 So it's not the typical white student that we see in other cases, right?

Speaker 2 Exactly. And that factor of it is something that made people take a second look.

Speaker 2 This is a case that had some twists and turns because of the ways that admissions officers had portrayed Asian American students in their notes, right?

Speaker 3 So does that make you feel differently about these cases than the previous ones we've been talking about?

Speaker 2 In some ways, it makes you take a closer look at what the actual facts of this case are.

Speaker 2 And it was interesting because at the district court trial, there was a lot made of the several different factors that went into a student's admissions decision.

Speaker 2 And one of the big ones that came out of that was the sort of ALDCs, right? The athletes, legacies, donors, and children of faculty. And that was really focused on.

Speaker 2 They really sort of drove at that, the Students for Fair Admissions, as one of the reasons and ways that Asian Americans were sort of left out and there was this side process.

Speaker 2 And it was always a question of how you were going to wrap that back to, okay, are they being discriminated on the basis of their race? Is this because black students are getting in?

Speaker 2 Asian American students aren't getting in.

Speaker 2 And ultimately, what Harvard is arguing is: listen, we may have an issue with the way that we have sort of calculated those numbers, but you can view these two things on different tracks.

Speaker 2 They're not necessarily connected.

Speaker 3 I see. So, what they're saying, which it sounds like you agree with, is

Speaker 3 sure, like we accept there may be an issue around the admission of Asian American students. There may be issues around the admissions of legacies and very, very many things.

Speaker 3 But that doesn't have much to do with affirmative action and black and brown students. Is that what you're saying?

Speaker 2 Effectively, yes. They are saying that just because they're using race in their admissions decision, that is not the thing that is ultimately keeping Asian American students out, right?

Speaker 2 Because the ways that you can use race is never as the final thing.

Speaker 2 So say if you have two students with identical backgrounds and one student is black, one student's Asian American, the university isn't going to say, well, we have enough Asian American students, we don't have enough black students, so the black student's going to get put over the top.

Speaker 2 So effectively, there may be issues with the admission system, but that doesn't have to do with the fact that black students are getting into the university.

Speaker 3 Right. Like that side is arguing it very literally.
Like student A, who is Asian, did not get in because student B, who is black, did get in. But of course, it's not like that.

Speaker 3 There's a million different factors involved in why anybody does or doesn't get in. And it's all really complicated, including how they use race.

Speaker 2 Exactly. So it may have been that, you know, they needed an additional polo player, or maybe they needed an extra tuba, right?

Speaker 2 The first year tuba had graduated, and so they needed to replace their tuba player.

Speaker 2 There are all these different ways that universities are thinking about shaping an admitted class of students that aren't limited to this sort of who scored the highest on the SAT, who scored the highest on the AC2, who has the highest GPA.

Speaker 3 Right, right. Because one thing I've been thinking about is you've talked about a history of backlash.

Speaker 3 There's sort of even if it's tiny amounts of progress, there's a sort of solidifying of diversity as a rationale, then there's a backlash against that.

Speaker 3 And I'm trying to understand if this latest case is just part of that, you know, many decades backlash.

Speaker 2 Aaron Ross Powell, in some ways, yes.

Speaker 2 If you think about higher education, the way that higher education is being attacked in this moment, the sort of tenure battles that are going on, the sort of fights to control curriculum,

Speaker 2 a lot of that sort of backlash stems from this idea of losing out on what is effectively a sort of private good at this point, right?

Speaker 2 People don't think of higher education as, oh, if if this person gets a college degree, it's good for everybody. It's that person got a college degree that's going to enhance their job prospects.

Speaker 2 Who knows? They could be president, or if they go to Harvard Law School, a Supreme Court justice one day. And,

Speaker 2 you know, this case sort of falls squarely into that. You know,

Speaker 2 early 2000s, Brown saying, hey, we want to study our history and legacy of segregation and discrimination at Brown University. And Harvard's like, oh, I want to do the same thing.

Speaker 2 We're in a moment where those institutions are finally having to

Speaker 2 account for that. And at that very moment, you have this attack that may remove one of the tools that has helped to have that enhanced minority enrollment.
Okay.

Speaker 3 Oh, I see. So this is essentially a bookend to the late 60s.
This is a moment when universities, either because it's been forced on them or because they want to do it, are doing some racial reckoning.

Speaker 3 And it's just at this very moment that it gets shut down. Is that what you're saying essentially?

Speaker 2 Effectively, yeah.

Speaker 3 You know, it's funny, Adam. I know you've written about higher education for a long time.
I feel like you care about higher education. Like you believe in higher education, right? I do.
As what?

Speaker 3 Like as a vehicle for what?

Speaker 2 So

Speaker 2 You know, so George Washington in his first address before Congress gets up and he talks about this like list of priorities, like all of these big things that America absolutely needs.

Speaker 2 And included in that is this really interesting paragraph where he says, there's nothing that better deserves your patronage than the arts and the sciences because knowledge in every country is the surest basis of public happiness.

Speaker 2 Effectively, at the time, they were thinking of ways to build a national character.

Speaker 2 And, you know, that's George Washington, that's Benjamin Rush, that's, you know, James Madison, that's Thomas Jefferson.

Speaker 2 They were thinking of these different ways to build a national character, and they thought that universities were the way to do that, to build good citizens, because you could, you know, you could teach people to be a citizen in K through 12 or in, you know, primary schools, but they weren't really grasping it.

Speaker 2 This was the real place where you would develop those citizens. And at several times of national disruption, you've had these calls back to, we need to invest more in higher education.

Speaker 2 You know, the War of 1812, you already had West Point there, but the federal government says, okay, we need to give additional money to West Point because this is a good for the public.

Speaker 2 The Civil War breaks out, and you have the 17 million acres of land doled out during the Murrill Act, the GI Bill, right?

Speaker 2 All of these big, grand investments in a public good and something that was not only good for the private individual, but good for everyone.

Speaker 2 And so, when I think of higher education, it's a great sort of democratizing way to expand one's sort of civic good.

Speaker 2 But if we are put into a position where higher education is no longer able to fill that central role, where higher education grows less diverse, and where,

Speaker 2 you know, those institutions that are feeders for Congress or feeders for the Supreme Court that have the most funding enroll fewer students of color, black students, Hispanic students, where does that leave us as a country?

Speaker 3 Yeah, I mean, part of what you're saying is that

Speaker 3 we just talk about Harvard, Yale, the sort of elite institutions all the time, but there is this whole other universe of things and people which represents a much larger number of people than these elite institutions.

Speaker 2 Yes, the majority of students who are enrolled in higher education attend institutions that accept more than 50% of their applicants.

Speaker 2 And so I think that our understanding of the issues in higher education get a little bit warped because of

Speaker 2 the sort of power dynamics of these institutions, right?

Speaker 2 So you look at the Supreme Court, you say that, wow, everybody but one person went to these two law schools, and that sort of shapes your perception of higher education generally.

Speaker 2 When there are millions and millions and millions of students who go to community colleges, who go to public regional institutions, who are being well served by these institutions, but that could be better served if these institutions were funded in the same way.

Speaker 2 I look at a state like North Carolina, for example.

Speaker 2 If you're a black student in North Carolina attending a public college, 23% of black students attend one of the 12 predominantly white four-year institutions.

Speaker 2 Around 27% attend one of the five public HBCUs, and around 50% attend one of the community colleges in the state.

Speaker 2 And so if you're pushing students out of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, pushing them out of North Carolina State University, it's only going to become more important for the state of North Carolina to fund those community colleges that the students are attending, to fund those HBCUs and other public regional institutions that those students are attending.

Speaker 3 And that's definitely a good thing. Absolutely.
You divert the attention towards the places where education is actually happening.

Speaker 2 Absolutely.

Speaker 3 So you're saying its utility is that it might reveal a truth.

Speaker 3 I think what's hard about that for me is that,

Speaker 3 I mean, Bollinger himself talked about

Speaker 3 how frustrated he seemed that, you know, like, why can't people connect with this issue?

Speaker 3 Like, it was so obvious to him, as not an activist, but just as the president of Michigan, that universities should play a role in redressing wrongs.

Speaker 3 And he banged his head against a little bit, like, why can't they? Why isn't this obvious to everybody?

Speaker 3 You know, yet I feel like you're still optimistic when I'm saying just this decision will make, you know, people will finally understand.

Speaker 2 You know, I think that it is a,

Speaker 2 you know, in the same way as I was, as I was writing through the book, right, it's like there have been instance after instance after instance of the ways that institutions have shown and the ways that the courts have shown and the ways that the states have shown that they

Speaker 2 were willing to discriminate against black students in higher education and that that needs to be addressed. I do have some pessimism about what it would take for the courts to reverse that, right?

Speaker 2 You know,

Speaker 2 because of course, at the minimum, it's like, okay, you, you hold on to this little bit of race conscious admissions that we have, this thing that's kind of been preventing the dam from just opening and everything falling apart.

Speaker 2 But I don't know. I think that I still have to remain hopeful.

Speaker 3 I don't want to bust your optimism. I feel like you're temperamentally a hopeful person.

Speaker 2 I am temperamentally hopeful. And I think it's not necessarily optimism as much as it's silver lining, right?

Speaker 2 That in some ways, this iteration of affirmative action, of race-conscious admissions that we have, is a veil that just sort of obscures the reality of what we have in higher education.

Speaker 2 It is a veil that has been helpful.

Speaker 2 But I think a natural system would be something along the lines of what Ruth Vader Ginsburg says when she was dissenting in Graz, she effectively says, wouldn't it be better for universities to just be honest about what they're doing and

Speaker 2 trying to make up for this past harm so we're not just sort of dealing in this black box environment i think in the same way right this will show that those gaps in terms of the funding are only going to grow wider the disparities are only going to get worse in terms of the funding for students and

Speaker 2 if that's not a wake-up call for people i have a hard time seeing what will be yeah

Speaker 3 This episode of Radio Atlantic was produced by Kevin Townsend and edited by Theo Balcombe. Our executive producer is Claudine Abade.
Our engineer is Rob Smirziak.

Speaker 3 Our fact-checkers are Sam Fantris and Michelle Soraka. Thank you also to managing editor Andrea Valdez and executive editor Adrienne LaFrance.
I'm Hannah Rosen and we'll be back next Thursday.

Speaker 4 Go Beyond the Lab in the new season of When Science Finds a Way, a podcast from Welcome, a global charitable foundation supporting science to solve urgent health challenges.

Speaker 4 You'll join me, Alicia Wainwright, your host for bold conversations about the scientific breakthroughs changing lives around the globe.

Speaker 4 In this season, each episode explores how science is not just in the lab, but alive in homes, supermarkets, hospitals, schools, and communities.

Speaker 4 We'll hear from a Nigerian artist who's channeling his lived experience into creative ways to support mental health, from Brazilian researchers who are using climate data to forecast and prevent disease outbreaks.

Speaker 4 From European scientists developing new imaging technology that reveals disease in the body in unprecedented detail.

Speaker 4 We'll even explore a groundbreaking new study that's reimagining reproductive healthcare.

Speaker 4 These are all stories about how communities and researchers are working together to meet urgent health challenges with empathy and impact.

Speaker 4 Listen to When Science Finds a Way, a science podcast that tells the human story wherever you get your podcasts.