Affirmative Action in Contracting: Sodexo Magic Example

When the Supreme Court rejected affirmative action at colleges and universities in 2023, finding that Harvard and the University of North Carolina practiced race-based discrimination against Asian American students, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote, "eliminating racial discrimination means eliminating all of it." 

The case, decided along ideological lines, caused a stir among progressives.

But was this discrimination the inevitable consequence of affirmative action policies? Or did it simply give cover to people with genuinely racist beliefs?

“The core problem with affirmative action — how it was being practiced, particularly at Harvard — is that they were just being racist to Asians … What was happening was not just like, ‘Oh, we’re all well-meaning people trying to improve [society]. These people had racist views about Asian Americans,” declared Jerusalem Demsas in The Argument’s premiere podcast episode.

In this heated conversation, Matthew Yglesias and Jerusalem tackled affirmative action, an increasingly unpopular policy. And the Harvard case sits at the heart of the debate.

“In a basic way,” lamented Matt, “it is not a good idea to be slotting people into racial and ethnic categories and judging them on that basis. It's not fair to people, and it's not healthy for society.”

WATCH THE EPISODE HERE

New episodes post every Thursday.

You can find The Argument on Substack, YouTube, and wherever you get your podcasts. 

Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | YouTube | Overcast | Pocket Casts

Further reading:

“Diversifying Society’s Leaders? The Determinants and Causal Effects of Admission to Highly Selective Private Colleges” by Raj Chetty, David J. Deming, and John N. Friedman

“Breaking Systemic Barriers: Being Black in the Aquatic Sciences and Related Fields” by Lauren Pharr

“Smartphones, Online Music Streaming, and Traffic Fatalities” by Vishal R. Patel, Christopher M. Worsham, Michael Liu, and Anupam B. Jena

Corrections:

• 05:36 - Matt says “LSAT flunk rates” when he means “bar exam flunk rates.”
• 07:06 - Jerusalem says “data from Sander’s” when she means “data from Sander’s critics.”
• 18:46 - Jerusalem says Raj Chetty’s data shows that attending an elite school “doubles” the likelihood of reaching the top income quintile when she means “increases by 50%.”

For more detailed show notes, visit TheArgumentMag.com

(Photo: Harold M. Lambert/Archival Photos via Getty Images)

The Argument is produced by Justin Zuckerman, fact-checked by Eli Richman, with music by Breakmaster Cylinder and art by Ben Tousley. To watch an ad-free version of this episode, become a paid subscriber at TheArgumentMag.com