
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.

8,478 Listeners

1,117 Listeners

751 Listeners

6,299 Listeners

712 Listeners

900 Listeners

2,125 Listeners

2,032 Listeners

7,166 Listeners

2,404 Listeners

16,042 Listeners

198 Listeners

381 Listeners

490 Listeners

438 Listeners