June 16, 2012

The Resegregation of America: Race and the Roberts Court


Caroline Fredrickson

President, American Constitution Society for Law and Policy
Begin: 00:00

Linda Greenhouse

Knight Distinguished Journalist-in-Residence and Joseph Goldstein Lecturer in Law, Yale Law School
Begin: 01:35

Reva Siegel

Nicholas deB. Katzenbach Professor of Law, Yale Law School
Begin: 09:10

Elise C. Boddie

Director of Litigation, NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund
Begin: 16:45

Linda Greenhouse

Knight Distinguished Journalist-in-Residence and Joseph Goldstein Lecturer in Law, Yale Law School
Begin: 20:25

Theodore M. Shaw

Professor of Professional Practice in Law, Columbia Law School
Begin: 22:50

Curt Levey

President and Executive Director, Committee for Justice
Begin: 31:18

Gene Nichol

Boyd Tinsley Distinguished Professor of Law and Director of the Center on Poverty, Work & Opportunity, University of North Carolina School of Law
Begin: 37:05

Thomas A. Saenz

President and General Counsel, Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund
Begin: 46:30

Discussion


Begin: 53:00

Justice Harry Blackmun wrote: "in order to get beyond racism, we must first take account of race. There is no other way." In sharp contrast, Chief Justice John Roberts advocates a "colorblindness" framework: "the way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race." The Supreme Court's recent decision to review Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin, so soon after upholding the constitutionality of the University of Michigan Law School's affirmative action program, signals its intent to reexamine the circumstances under which race consciousness is permissible and provides a timely opportunity to examine race and the Roberts Court more broadly. From Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District v. Holder andBartlett v. Strickland (voting) to Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District (education) and Ricci v. DeStefano (employment), the Court has steadily diminished the tools available to address racial inequalities. Panelists discussed areas where the Court's equal protection jurisprudence is making a difference, and for whom. They also examined the implications of varying approaches to race, both by the Court and in other policy arenas.