
Sign up to save your podcasts
Or


In his concurring opinion supporting the majority ruling striking down race-based affirmative action in college admissions, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas argued for a race-neutral reading of historical efforts to remediate the effects of slavery and racism. In his view, the formerly enslaved "freedmen," who were supposed to be cared for under the Freedmen's Bureau established after the Civil War, was formally a "race-neutral category." Thomas has spent his judicial career arguing the Fourteenth Amendment bars any form of race-conscious policymaking, and he has taken a narrow view of the rights protected under the amendment's clauses. Does he have his history right? The eminent historian of the Reconstruction era Eric Foner joins the conversation.
By Martin Di Caro4.4
6262 ratings
In his concurring opinion supporting the majority ruling striking down race-based affirmative action in college admissions, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas argued for a race-neutral reading of historical efforts to remediate the effects of slavery and racism. In his view, the formerly enslaved "freedmen," who were supposed to be cared for under the Freedmen's Bureau established after the Civil War, was formally a "race-neutral category." Thomas has spent his judicial career arguing the Fourteenth Amendment bars any form of race-conscious policymaking, and he has taken a narrow view of the rights protected under the amendment's clauses. Does he have his history right? The eminent historian of the Reconstruction era Eric Foner joins the conversation.

8,497 Listeners

1,103 Listeners

756 Listeners

6,311 Listeners

721 Listeners

903 Listeners

2,255 Listeners

2,015 Listeners

7,216 Listeners

2,415 Listeners

16,173 Listeners

211 Listeners

383 Listeners

492 Listeners

463 Listeners