- Justice Clarence Thomas questioned the meaning of "diversity" during Supreme Court arguments.
- The question came during a high-profile challenge against the University of North Carolina's race-conscious admissions process.
Associate Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas on Monday questioned the meaning of "diversity" as the court heard a high-profile challenge against the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill over its race-conscious admissions process.
As diversity was brought up repeatedly throughout the hours-long oral arguments, Thomas, the court's longest-serving justice and widely considered the most conservative, pressed for a more specific definition of the term.
"I've heard the word diversity quite a few times and I don't have a clue what it means. It seems to mean everything for everyone," Thomas asked North Carolina's solicitor general Ryan Park, who represented the university.
"I'd like you to give us a specific definition of diversity in the context of the University of North Carolina," Thomas continued. "And I'd also like you to give us a clear idea of exactly what the educational benefits of diversity at the University of North Carolina would be."
The college's definition of diversity aligns with the Supreme Court's definition, Park responded, which is: "a broadly diverse set of criteria that extends to all different backgrounds and perspectives, and not solely limited to race."
"We value diversity of all different kinds and all the ways that people differ in our society," Park added.
On the "educational benefits" question, Park said it's undisputed that diversity leads to a "deeper and richer learning environment," a "more creative thinking and exchange of ideas," and "reduced bias" on college campuses.
Thomas pushed back on that assessment by pointing to his own experience: "I didn't go to racially diverse schools, but there were educational benefits."
He then urged Park to further explain how university learning is better served by diverse perspectives and backgrounds.
"I'd like you to tell me expressly when a parent sends a kid to college, they don't necessarily send them there to have fun or feel good or anything like that," Thomas said. "They send them there to learn physics or chemistry or whatever they're studying."
Park reiterated UNC's view by using stock-trading as an example, stating that racially diverse groups "perform at a higher level" because the dynamic "reduces groupthink" and produces "longer and more sustained disagreement," leading to a "more efficient outcome."
But Thomas appeared to dismiss that evidence by comparing that argument to "arguments in favor of segregation."
The back-and-forth came during a lengthy and impassioned debate over whether considering an applicant's race in the university admissions process is constitutional. Through their questioning, Thomas, along with other conservative justices, seemed to suggest that it wasn't.
Students for Fair Admissions, a nonprofit group led by affirmative-action opponent Edward Blum, claims that the University of North Carolina discriminated against white and Asian applicants by factoring in race in their admissions policies.
The college has denied the allegations, arguing that race only plays a limited but meaningful role in the admissions process and that SFFA has relied on misleading statistics to make its case. Lower courts sided with the university, prompting SFFA to turn to the Supreme Court.
A ruling in favor of SFFA would mean overturning nearly decades of precedent as American colleges have long used race as part of their admissions process in an effort to strengthen diversity on campuses. Universities and affirmative-action advocates warn that eliminating race-conscious admissions would lead to declining enrollment rates among students of color.
It isn't the first time Thomas has expressed skepticism toward race-conscious policies. A graduate of Yale Law School, Thomas has long maintained that affirmative action diminishes a minority group's achievements by considering them through the lens of race.
In Grutter v. Bollinger, a landmark ruling decided nearly 20 years ago that upheld affirmative action policies in higher education, Thomas dissented. SFFA has asked the Supreme Court to overturn that decision.