June 16, 2012
The Resegregation of America: Race and the Roberts Court
Caroline Fredrickson
President, American Constitution Society for Law and PolicyBegin: 00:00
Linda Greenhouse
Knight Distinguished Journalist-in-Residence and Joseph Goldstein Lecturer in Law, Yale Law SchoolBegin: 01:35
Reva Siegel
Nicholas deB. Katzenbach Professor of Law, Yale Law SchoolBegin: 09:10
Elise C. Boddie
Director of Litigation, NAACP Legal Defense and Educational FundBegin: 16:45
Linda Greenhouse
Knight Distinguished Journalist-in-Residence and Joseph Goldstein Lecturer in Law, Yale Law SchoolBegin: 20:25
Theodore M. Shaw
Professor of Professional Practice in Law, Columbia Law SchoolBegin: 22:50
Curt Levey
President and Executive Director, Committee for JusticeBegin: 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 LawBegin: 37:05
Thomas A. Saenz
President and General Counsel, Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational FundBegin: 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.