
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.
4.5
5353 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.
9,131 Listeners
1,141 Listeners
3,951 Listeners
3,476 Listeners
6,292 Listeners
730 Listeners
1,084 Listeners
316 Listeners
139 Listeners
79 Listeners
15,237 Listeners
192 Listeners
456 Listeners
323 Listeners
421 Listeners