...In a 5-4 opinion delivered by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor (click here), the Court held that the Equal Protection Clause does not prohibit the Law School's narrowly tailored use of race in admissions decisions to further a compelling interest in obtaining the educational benefits that flow from a diverse student body. The Court reasoned that, because the Law School conducts highly individualized review of each applicant, no acceptance or rejection is based automatically on a variable such as race and that this process ensures that all factors that may contribute to diversity are meaningfully considered alongside race. Justice O'Connor wrote, "in the context of its individualized inquiry into the possible diversity contributions of all applicants, the Law School's race-conscious admissions program does not unduly harm nonminority applicants."
In the oral arguments on that page Clarence Thomas asks no questions. Justice Scalia chimes in a few times, but, never Thomas.
Besides Thomas none of the original Justices that rendered the opinion are on the court. Thomas is the only original judge. Thomas also brings a lot of religious bias to his decisions, but, in this article even the Catholics are questioning his decision about Affirmative Action.
...So it is not a surprise that Thomas, (click here) a celebrated member of the conservative Catholic community made the connection in his concurring opinion about the Indiana abortion law. He noted the origins of eugenics (click here) as a scientific and academic discipline, explaining that "leaders in the eugenics movement held prominent positions at Harvard, Stanford, and Yale, among other schools, and eugenics was taught at 376 universities and colleges."
Whatever the truth to the claims that abortion policy and jurisprudence are rooted in eugenic ideas, it is clear that eugenics itself is contrary to Catholic morals and social teaching. And it could be easily grasped why a Catholic justice would be concerned about the mischief that eugenic thinking in policy and medicine could do in a system that is not properly inoculated against it.
Which is why it was surprising to hear him take the opposite position to modest anti-racism policies in recent oral arguments for cases challenging affirmative action.
On Oct. 31, the Supreme Court heard two different cases challenging affirmative action. One case involves affirmative action in a public university, Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. University of North Carolina, and the other in a private university, Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College.
During oral arguments in the North Carolina case, Thomas questioned the educational benefit of racially diverse schools: "...
