In a 6-3 decision, the court held that Harvard University’s and the University of North Carolina’s admissions processes violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Chief Justice John Roberts’s majority opinion explains that the Constitution does not allow admissions policies that single out a particular race for either an advantage or a disadvantage.

The decision has prompted much hand-wringing by progressives still interested in judging people by the color of their skin rather than the content of their character. But progressives should also understand that the court’s Students for Fair Admissions cases effectively sound the death knell for the raced-based reparations movement.

The Fourteenth Amendment declares that no state shall “deny to any person . . . the equal protection of the laws.” Early Supreme Court decisions understood that this meant that “the law in the States shall be the same for the black as for the white; that all persons, whether colored or white, shall stand equal before the laws of the States.”

In 1896, the court’s odious decision in Plessy v. Ferguson deviated from that early understanding, upholding the notorious policy of “separate but equal” discrimination. But in 1954, Brown v. Board of Education restored the court’s colorblind view. The Supreme Court has consistently held since then that any government policy involving the use of race must be held to the exacting standard known as “strict scrutiny.” Even in Regents of Univ. of California v. Bakke, the first case to allow “affirmative action,” Justice Powell explained that “[r]acial and ethnic distinctions of any sort are inherently suspect,” and that “antipathy toward them was deeply “rooted in our Nation’s constitutional and demographic history.”

The Students for Fair Admissions decisions reaffirmed the legal principle that law and government policies must be colorblind. All government programs will now be assessed by what Roberts calls “the Equal Protection Clause’s twin commands: that race may never be used as a ‘negative’ and that it may not operate as a stereotype.”

Government payments made based on someone’s race — also known as reparations — fail this same common-sense test. Reparations advocates publicly call for governments at the local, state and even federal level to make payments with taxpayer dollars only to Black or African American individuals who descended from slaves. Those of all other races would be ineligible.

That means that a government-funded reparations policy would use race to the detriment of some and the benefit of others. Whether that policy proposes paying $1.2 million per recipient such as the plan California has been considering, or the $25,000 per Black resident that Evanston, Illinois agreed to pay last month, it is a clear violation of Roberts’s rules and the principle of ensuring colorblind laws and government programs.

Government may not provide subsidies or bonuses to whites because they are white. By the same token, it cannot deny them subsidies because they are white.

Reparations programs would do exactly that. If put to the test judicially, they should meet the same ill judicial fate as race-based college admissions policies. After all, as Roberts observed, the Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause is “universal in [its] application,” and “eliminating racial discrimination means eliminating all of it.”

Reparations proponents should take Roberts at his word.

Horace Cooper, the chairman of Project 21, is the author of Put Y’all Back in Chains: How Joe Biden's Policies Hurt Black Americans.

The future lawyer endorsed the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement and denounced Israel for “murdering” the old and the young, “encourag[ing] lynch mobs” against Palestinians and “imprisoning” children.  

Condemnations came fast and furious, while powerful campus union officials stayed silent. 

New York lawmakers called on the state’s governor to cut the school’s funding. Harvard Law professor emeritus Alan Dershowitz labeled CUNY Law an “embarrassment.” Jewish activists petitioned the IRS to investigate the university for potentially violating its tax-exempt status. And CUNY Law alumni decried their alma mater as “toxic.” 

This groundswell of fury prompted CUNY’s Board of Trustees to issue a statement calling the remarks “hate speech.”  

That’s when CUNY’s faculty union finally chimed in — not to criticize Mohammed, but to defend her.  

The Professional Staff Congress (PSC), a public-sector union affiliated with the American Federation of Teachers, represents 30,000 university faculty and staff, many of whom are Jewish. Yet PSC officials called on CUNY’s Board to retract its statement, claiming that the Board’s condemnation “betrays” the university’s commitment to “the full and free exchange of ideas.” 

Mohammed soon doubled down on her comments, telling Jewish Currents, “I would not change a single word of my speech — and I would say it louder.” 

To many CUNY professors, the union’s willingness to defend what so many others recognize as an antisemitic rant came as no surprise. They had already witnessed the union fostering an environment hostile to Jews, while ostracizing those who disagree — even its own members.

For example, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission cited CUNY in 2021 for failing to protect a Jewish professor after the PSC discriminated against him and subjected him to a hostile work environment on the basis of his Jewish faith. 

That same year, the PSC encouraged support for the BDS movement, calling Israel an apartheid state. In a resolution later echoed in Mohammed’s commencement speech, the union bemoaned “the continued subjection of Palestinians to the state-supported displacement, occupation, and use of lethal force by Israel.” 

And last year, when a New York City councilwoman confronted PSC president James Davis about the union’s antipathy towards Jews, Davis denied having publicly supported the BDS movement. Yet a campus organization fighting antisemitism has him on video admitting to just that. 

Unions present themselves as a means for employees to combat discrimination and harassment. But what recourse do employees have when their own union encourages this abuse? 

Hundreds of dues-paying CUNY professors dropped their PSC memberships in protest following the union’s pro-BDS resolution. Unfortunately, they are all still being represented by the union they want no part of, and the law is currently on the union’s side. 

Thanks to the Supreme Court’s Janus v. AFSCME decision five years ago, these non-member professors can’t be forced to pay the union for its unwanted representation. Janus prohibited mandatory union payments in the public sector on First Amendment grounds. However, it did not fully free nonmembers from union control. 

New York, like many other states, gives public-sector unions the right to represent all employees in a bargaining unit, whether or not those employees are union members. This practice, called “exclusive representation,” means that public employees cannot choose different union representation or negotiate with their employer for themselves. 

For six CUNY professors, five of whom are Jewish, it is unacceptable to be represented in employment matters by a union that emboldens and defends an unrepentant antisemitic speaker such as Mohammed. They do not wish to have their salary and working conditions negotiated by such an organization.  

Facing this reality, these professors banded together to battle, through the courts, what they view as an oppressive union monopoly. Their federal lawsuit before the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, filed by attorneys at the Fairness Center and National Right to Work Foundation, challenges exclusive representation as a violation of their First Amendment right of free association.  

Unless the courts intervene, PSC officials will remain free to alienate Jews, knowing their only escape from the union is to quit their jobs. Not only that, but public employees across the country who object to their unions’ divisive actions or political stances would similarly remain trapped in unwanted representation. 

Nathan McGrath is president and general counsel for the Fairness Center, a nonprofit law firm representing those hurt by public-sector union officials. 

This view has long been supported by the public, and polls suggest the decision was viewed favorably by most Americans, including a significant share of African Americans — perhaps even a plurality of them, depending on how the question was asked. 

Long before the opinion was released, universities were already sensing that the use of race in admissions was coming to an end after decades of intense litigation. Some quietly formed teams to plan how they might evade such a ruling and continue to use race in admissions.

Under the preexisting standards for the use of race in admissions, schools spent decades assuring the courts that race was not being weighed heavily and had only marginal effects on admissions. However, after the ruling, schools declared that Black and Latino admissions would "plummet" if they were no longer permitted to use race as a criterion for admission.

Those arguments have deepened the distrust over how universities will adjust to the ruling in seeking to preserve current diversity numbers. 

Berkeley Law Dean Erwin Chemerinsky, who previously called the conservative justices "partisan hacks," was recently criticized for suggesting that he might be willing to lie about the weight given to race at this school. He told students: “I’ll give you an example from our law school, but if ever I’m deposed, I’m going to deny I said this to you. When we do faculty hiring, we’re quite conscious that diversity is important to us, and we say diversity is important, it’s fine to say that.”

Although Chemerinsky later insisted that he had been joking, the comments highlighted a concern that schools would be less than honest in manipulating reviews to achieve diversity goals.

Indeed, one of the earliest moves to blunt any constitutional ruling may have come from the former head of the California university system, Janet Napolitano. After citizens of one of the most liberal states in the union voted in 2020 to block affirmative action in education and hiring, Napolitano moved to drop the primary method used to expose racial preferences: standardized tests. 

Before that, she had assembled a handpicked task force in 2019 to study the issue. But the task force found the opposite of what it had been designed to find. Standardized testing, it turned out, proved to be the single most accurate indicator of college performance, including for non-white students. Napolitano overrode those conclusions and ended the use of the standardized college tests anyway.

After this recent ruling, many universities denounced the Supreme Court and pledged to "reimagine" admissions. Medical schools are being encouraged "to pivot" in order to continue to reach diversity goals for entering classes. More schools are moving to dump objective standardized tests (or make them optional) in favor of more subjective scoring in order to shield racial criteria for admissions. 

That has led many citizens to ask what can be done. After all, most people oppose such use of race in admissions. Even liberal states such as California and Michigan have made it unlawful by referendum. Now, the Supreme Court has declared it unconstitutional as well. Yet most believe the fight will continue as schools creatively construct new pathways to accommodate racial discrimination.

In the academic echo chamber, these discussions are playing well with their audiences, but less so with the public. Worse yet, they assume that there is not much that can be done to thwart their efforts. They are wrong.

There is a nuclear option. This is for states to take over admissions in public higher education.

States could require the use of standardized testing and codify admissions criteria, including requiring transparency and annual certifications from school officials.

For example, a state could publish an admission grid, wherein applicants are placed into "bands" based on the combination of their standardized scores and grade point averages. They could then allow for other factors to be given a set amount of weight to adjust the ranking in each band based on extracurricular or individual accomplishments. This could be limited to, for example, a 10 or 15 percent step-up from the baseline score in ranking.

Offers of admission would then be based on the ranking, made on a rolling basis downward to fill available seats.

There are obvious costs to such a system. Some students do not perform well on standardized tests. Others have particularly impressive background stories. It is possible to create a percentage of acceptances for such exceptional cases. However, they would be limited in number and require annual reporting on the specific exceptional findings. Laws could also limit the degree to which exceptional criteria can be used to increase a ranking by more than one or two bands.

Some schools would also likely want to allow greater differentials for one category of applicants: athletes. Some schools raise massive amounts of revenue through sporting programs such as football and basketball. They will likely insist on continuing to recruit students largely on the basis of their athletic rather than academic achievements. That is a long-standing debate, but the use of transparent, objective criteria will expose just how much of a "bump" such athletic ability is allowed in admissions.

When it comes to students, the state can assert an interest in protecting them from political, racial, or other bias. Taxpayers fund these schools to maintain higher education opportunities in their states. Academics often treat the taxpayers as an ATM with no voice on what their money is buying, even while creating openly hostile environments for conservative and libertarian viewpoints.

The choice remains with these schools as they openly plan new ways of weighing race. The frank discussion suggests that citizens are mere captive audiences, and that neither public polling nor Supreme Court precedent will change the policies. However, citizens can break the glass and take greater control over admissions if this defiance continues.

Moreover, such laws can expose long-concealed systems of bias in selection. Unlike many schools, like Harvard, that spent years withholding data, state schools could become completely transparent on the weight they have been giving to various criteria.

A state-mandated system would come at some cost. It would limit the value of non-academic achievements, though even that can be adjusted to allow variation, so long as exceptional "bumps" are recorded and disclosed. 

A nuclear option could also face complications in some states, where school charters or statutes give schools control over admissions. However, while some states have dedicated funds that go to schools, most can decide how much money will go to higher education. Taxpayers are not a captive audience. They can condition funding on the adherence to objective and transparent admissions. 

I hope that it does not come to such a showdown. But these defiant statements from administrators and academics just may trigger an equal determination in states to put an end to the use of race as an admissions criterion.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University.

Committee staff members asked me to delete this phrase: “the Trump administration’s fanning of anti-Chinese racism.” When I declined, they withdrew the invitation.

The hearing went ahead, and it’s critical to ensure that Chinese government actors responsible for threats to free speech in the U.S. aren’t let off the hook.

My organization has documented Chinese threats to human rights in a half-dozen democracies since 2014. Under President Xi Jinping, who assumed power in 2012, Chinese authorities aggressively seek to shape global perceptions of China, including at colleges and universities. They improperly try to influence academic discussions and institutions, monitor students and scholars of China and from China, and censor scholarly inquiry.

They have financially supported academic programs that paint the Chinese government in a wholly positive light, and they have tried to influence who is — and is not — permitted to speak on campuses. The very openness of universities in democratic nations makes them particularly vulnerable to the kinds of threats we have documented.

Censorship, self-censorship, surveillance and harassment of and threats to students and scholars of China and from China are ongoing problems on U.S. campuses. Most recently, we have tracked problems encountered by pro-democracy students from Hong Kong following Beijing’s imposition of a draconian “national security” law on that territory in 2020. And in late 2022 we examined universities’ willingness to protect the free speech of those supporting protesters in China who challenged that government’s “zero-Covid” lockdowns.

Throughout this work, we have met with hundreds of university administrators and leaders across the U.S., almost none of whom have been willing to adopt preventive or mitigating policies. Some categorically state they do not have such problems on their campuses, though when pressed they admit they do not look for evidence. Others insist that their existing rules are enough to grapple with the problems.

New and stricter American government policies around national security and financial disclosure have prompted universities to make some changes regarding their ties to Chinese state entities, but few have taken steps to improve protections regarding free speech, especially for students. Horrifying waves of anti-Chinese racism have made universities reluctant to take stronger positions, fearing they will be seen as exacerbating that problem — despite the compatibility of condemning racism and condemning threats to free speech. We drafted a code of conduct to help schools think through solutions to these problems, and some have quietly adopted our recommendations.

But there is another free speech concern at issue about this hearing. In February 2022, George Washington University reversed a decision to censor artwork on campus critical of the Chinese Communist Party. Republican Rep. Virginia Foxx, who is now the chairwoman of the Committee on Education and the Workforce, in remarks ultimately praising GWU, criticized universities for claiming to support free speech but punishing “those with different viewpoints for simply speaking their mind.” Those who fail to defend campus free speech are “no better than the Communist Chinese Party,” she said.

This remains a reasonable acknowledgment of an academic institution’s initial mistake and then its efforts to make that right. And it’s encouraging to know members of this subcommittee want to learn more about the broader topic.

But rejecting an informative analysis simply because it criticizes the Trump administration’s racist comments — which impeded effective action on Chinese government threats on campuses — raises questions about who is “better than” whom. Congressional hearings, like campus debates, are improved by robust discussion. In this instance, an intolerance for peaceful criticism in Washington benefits those in Beijing who are profoundly hostile to free speech.

Sophie Richardson is China director at Human Rights Watch.

An honest assessment would disclose that America has made progress, but it has been a back-and-forth struggle since the first slaves set foot on North American soil.  

Slavery has left an ugly legacy that Americans are still grappling with, even after the Civil War was thought to have resolved the struggle. Former slaves did not begin to experience any measure of equality until after that war. Slavery was, for the most part, abolished by the 13th Amendment in 1865. States were required in 1866 to accord equal rights to everyone under the 14th Amendment. In 1870, the 15th Amendment prohibited denial of the right of citizens to vote, based on “race, color, or previous condition of servitude.” These new laws should have ensured equality for the freed slaves, but that did not turn out to be the case. 

For every step that the country has taken to fulfill the promise of equality, we have experienced a reaction, driven either by ill will or indifference or a combination of both, that has hindered the attainment of equality.

The recent U.S. Supreme Court decision eliminating affirmative action in college admissions is just the latest example of the backsliding that has been inherent in the system since the Civil War dust settled.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote a remarkable dissent in the case, identifying structural barriers that slaves and their progeny have faced in trying to attain a measure of equality. She posited that the lack of educational opportunities has hindered the achievement of equality across the board: “Given the central role that education plays in breaking the cycle of racial inequality, these structural barriers reinforce other forms of inequality in communities of color,” she wrote.

Sotomayor's dissent factually deflates the critical race theory hysteria, another barrier that extremist media and cynical politicians dredged up in the fall of 2020 to blunt the Black Lives Matter movement and influence that year’s elections. 

The back-and-forth equality struggle began in earnest in the wake of the Civil War. The freed slaves enjoyed their on-paper rights to equality for a number of years, but slowly and relentlessly those rights were taken away by white supremacists. Laws were enacted at the state and local level to establish racial segregation and keep Blacks from voting, receiving a decent education and exercising other basic rights. These laws remained in effect throughout the first half of the 20th century. 

Business and social practices took hold across the country through the mid-century to keep Blacks from living in white communities. Blacks could not get housing loans for certain areas through a practice called redlining. Restrictions in deeds and covenants kept Blacks out of many neighborhoods. Those restrictions, though now unenforceable, can still be found in the property documents of many states. 

In 1954, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that separate schools for Black kids were not constitutionally permissible. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibited a broad range of discriminatory practices, including in employment, housing and access to public accommodations. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 was designed to provide people of color with equal access to the polls. These were certainly important steps toward achieving equality for all Americans. However, before the ink was dry on them, politicians who opposed them began laying the groundwork for repealing or, at minimum, undermining them. 

Most recently, the Supreme Court’s right-wing supermajority, assisted by many of Donald Trump’s appointees to the lower federal courts, has been effective at reversing the march toward equal rights. This reversal is in keeping with our historic back-and-forth struggle for equality. 

Despite America’s efforts to eliminate discrimination, Black and brown people still do not enjoy the same rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness that the rest of the nation takes for granted. The disproportionate death rate among people of color in the pandemic and its wake speaks of the need for attention to the health needs of these citizens. The effort in some states to make it harder for these folks to vote spells out the need for remedial action. 

This is a wonderful country but its blessings are not equally available to all who live here. We are a work in progress and, while progress has been made in the last 247 years, we still have a long way to go. Parents of all races should have confidence that their children who leave home wearing hoodies will come home safely, that they and their children will have access to good medical care, and that they will have equal access to a polling place and a quality education.

History shows that the march toward equality can prevail, so long as we all do our part to make it succeed. 

Jim Jones is a Vietnam combat veteran who served eight years as Idaho’s attorney general (1983-1991) and 12 years as a justice on the Idaho Supreme Court (2005-2017). He is a regular contributor to The Hill. 

Sadly, after three decades, the NVRA is performing far below its potential.

Absent action by officials, bureaucratic or elected, and with or without prodding by voting rights advocates, millions of citizens will be denied registration opportunities between now and the next presidential election. Moreover, because half of voter registration applications update existing registration records, allowing the NVRA to fail means the rolls become littered with inaccuracies.

Partly due to the NVRA’s reforms, voter registration rates have inched upward over the last two decades. Nonetheless, stark inequalities in registration rates still exist. According to Census Bureau data, young, non-white and low-income citizens, as well as those with disabilities or who have recently moved, have markedly lower registration rates than their counterparts. In addition, each election cycle, hundreds of thousands of citizens who thought they were registered report they could not vote due to inaccuracies in the rolls.

One reason for these persistent disparities and errors is that states frequently fail to offer voter registration services to their citizens as required in the NVRA. Indeed, in its final report, the 2014 Presidential Commission on Election Administration referred to the NVRA as “the election statute most often ignored.” A shockingly widespread form of noncompliance has been the failure of states to offer voter registration services through health and human services programs, such as Medicaid and SNAP, as required in Section 7 of the NVRA.

Several factors suggest that Section 7 programs could reduce registration disparities and correct millions of outdated records. First, these health and human services agencies interact with tens of millions of adult citizens. Before the pandemic, approximately one in six adult citizens participated in at least one of the four largest programs covered by Section 7. Second, this large population has a substantial need for voter registration services. For the average year over the past decade, there has been a 16-point gap in the registration rates between citizens in the lowest- and highest-income quartiles.

The damage noncompliance does to the accuracy and coverage of voter registration lists becomes clear if we consider the volume of registrations produced when state social service agencies operate under agreements or court orders enforcing compliance. After Alabama signed an agreement in 2014, social service voter registration applications jumped from 5,000 for the 2012 election cycle to nearly 120,000 for 2016. In Ohio, agency registrations went from nearly 40,000 in the 2004 election cycle to an average of almost 270,000 per cycle after the state settled Section 7 litigation in 2009. The potential impact on voters of full implementation is clear — fortunately, there are evidence-based ways to move elements of the NVRA from poor to excellent performance.

First, civic organizations, Congress, the Justice Department, state officials and legislators must provide the NVRA with sustained attention to ensure that states comply with the act’s voter registration programs.

Second, several states are exploring how automatic voter registration (AVR) policies in motor voter programs, which more than 20 states have adopted, could be used in Medicaid agencies. Essentially, if Medicaid applicants provide information sufficient for registering or updating an existing registration, their citizenship is confirmed via the Federal Data Services Hub. Data for verified citizens are then electronically passed to election officials for processing. Citizens who do not wish to register or update their registration can opt out, but all other verified citizens are seamlessly registered.

By addressing deficiencies in the design of Section 7, applying optimal AVR practices to Medicaid offers a promising way to both increase client response and improve state noncompliance with the NVRA in a program serving tens of millions of adult citizens. Thirty years after its passage, now is the time to make good on the promise of the NVRA and empower every eligible voter to register, cast a ballot and make their voice heard.

Sam Oliker-Friedland is the executive director of the Institute for Responsive Government. Previously, he was a voting rights litigator at the Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division under both the Obama and Trump administrations. Prior to that, he worked on election administration law and data in the nonprofit sector.

Douglas R. Hess, Ph.D., is an expert on the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA). Since 1994, he has advised officials and civil rights advocates on implementing the NVRA, and has conducted scholarly research and co-authored testimony for Congress and the National Research Council. A community organizer, he has taught political science at Grinnell College, Smith College, Georgetown University and George Washington University. @douglasrhess

She relied on free speech rather than religious freedom. However, her moral concerns mirrored claims by religious people who have refused to bake cakes or take pictures for same-sex weddings, rent rooms in their bed-and-breakfast to same-sex couples, place children with same-sex foster parents, or hire employees who engage in same-sex intimacy. They believe that following discrimination laws and supporting what they view as others’ sinful acts would make them complicit in those sins. 

Avoiding complicity is important, but it does not require discrimination. Businesspeople who want to follow their moral views can change jobs or business models. The options for those who are discriminated against, and for a society trying to build a culture of equality, are much narrower.

Some liberals think we should reject complicity claims because the harms of complicity are unimportant. Others think we should reject such claims because they rely on hateful moral views. Although I agree with the liberal conclusion, I do not support these reasons. 

The law should take complicity concerns seriously. Most people care about complicity: We want to live following our own values and not contributing to things we view as wrong. Much like their conservative counterparts, liberals try to avoid complicity. For example, they invest in socially responsible investment funds and participate in divestment movements. They boycott governments and businesses, disinvite speakers, and support military conscientious objectors.

The government should not condemn people’s complicity concerns simply because it rejects their values. Even if their values are based on prejudices, their desires to lead authentic lives are not. Nor should we usually want the government to condemn our opponents’ moral views.

The government cannot be wholly neutral; it must decide whether to protect same-sex marriage. But once it decides, it should not demonize the losing side, which would only increase polarization. We can imagine liberals seeking conscientious exemptions from conservative laws, and would not want lawmakers to label liberal commitments evil.

Nevertheless, we should reject most complicity-based exceptions to discrimination laws. 

Discrimination laws help to build a society based on equality and respect. Historically, excluding Black people from hotels and restaurants entrenched inequality by expressing the belief in Black inferiority. This history explains why early discrimination laws targeted restaurants and hotels. The same idea applies to sexuality. Being refused service while preparing for a wedding conveys a potent message of inequality. Same-sex couples have a legal right to marry because they are equal members of society — and to be treated like equal members, they need equal access to wedding services.

Religious people need not discriminate to follow their values. Those concerned about complicity can live according to their faith by choosing jobs unrelated to weddings. Of course, this might require sacrifice. The sacrifice would have been small for Lorie Smith, whose case made it to the high court before she entered the wedding industry. For bakers and photographers, it might require a greater adjustment to their business model. For wedding planners and innkeepers, it might require different careers altogether.

Were the political roles reversed, conservatives would rightly demand that liberals make these sacrifices. For example, a religious fundamentalist might ask a feminist web designer to create a wedding website. The designer might refuse because she thought gender roles in religious marriages oppressed women. Religious people would want the designer to provide the website or exit the wedding design business, even at some cost to her livelihood.

Such sacrifices are necessary to create a society where we are treated respectfully by those who disapprove of our ways of life. Career restrictions represent a smaller sacrifice than being asked to accept the indignity of inequality.

Scott Altman is Virginia S. and Fred H. Bice Professor of Law at USC Gould School of Law and is an expert in jurisprudence, property and family law.

In addition to Chief Justice John Roberts's majority opinion, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a magisterial concurring opinion, explaining that the Constitution is, quite properly, colorblind.

The case featured dueling views of the Constitution and race. One is Justice Thomas’s view that the Constitution forbids racial classifications of people. He “hold[s] out enduring hope that this country will live up to its principles so clearly enunciated in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States: that all men are created equal, are equal citizens, and must be treated equally before the law.”

The other is the dissenters’ view that racial classifications are not only permissible but necessary to correct the negative effects of past racial classifications. They argue that we must “do what evidence and experts tell us is required,” even if that requires more discrimination.

But what does the Constitution actually say? The 14th Amendment says that “all persons” born in and subject to the United States are citizens. It says that the privileges or immunities of “citizens” cannot be abridged. It says that no “person” may be denied life, liberty, or property without due process of law. And it says that every “person” is entitled to equal protection of the laws. The language is universal, and it was meant to be.

The framers of that amendment, as Thomas shows, knew that America had fallen short of the high ideals of the Declaration of Independence, that “all men are created equal.” They wanted to put the country right — not just for one specific race, but for everyone. They knew what Frederick Douglass knew: that “man is man, the world over.”

Black Americans' plight, of course, had inspired that amendment. But its authors were thinking bigger than just one race. They were thinking of humanity. What this proves, says Justice Thomas, is that discrimination in favor of African Americans is just as unconstitutional as discrimination against them.

The three dissenters try to muster a historical argument to the contrary, but it is cherry-picked and incomplete. In their view, the solution to past and present racial disparities is for experts to create present and future racial disparities that tip the balance of outcomes in the other direction. Black people suffered harms generations ago that make it less likely that their descendants will get into Harvard today? Well, then, the admissions experts at Harvard should be trusted to lower standards and admit more of them today, perhaps even at someone else's expense.

This balancing act, they argue, is the only way to correct past disparities. It is “ignorance,” they argue, to make the law colorblind when the people are not.

Thomas agrees that America is not colorblind. Indeed, he recounts with much more specificity the legacy of America’s color-conscious history. Race is “a social construct,” he says, and yet it has played an enormous role in American life, usually with devastating consequences. Slavery, segregation, anti-Chinese discrimination, Jewish exclusion from universities, Japanese internment, and now anti-Asian discrimination in elite universities — all these things have been defended at one time or another as "positive goods.”

People rarely think they are doing evil when they discriminate, but so often they are.

Even the best-intentioned programs often hurt those they’re meant to help. Racial preferences in admissions are no exception. Thomas points to a large body of empirical literature demonstrating that, but for racial preferences, there would be more minority doctors, lawyers, and other professionals than there are today. It's simply untrue, as he points out, to think that only the elite schools can give non-white students a leg up in the world. Historically Black colleges and universities, it turns out, are more likely to produce African American judges, lawyers, and doctors than the Ivies are.

And, of course, discrimination in favor of one person hurts others, especially in the context of zero-sum games like student admissions. A spot given to one applicant because of his race is a spot taken away from another student because of hers. This sort of racial spoils system is no different in principle than the sort of historical discrimination we all now agree was evil. The only difference is “whose ox is gored.”

What’s more, racial divisions — even for supposedly “benign” purposes — breed more racial resentment and increase the view that people are first, if not exclusively, defined by their skin color. Thomas notes that segregation on college campuses has not abated with the use of racial preferences. Quite the opposite — almost half of all colleges now segregate housing and orientation programs, and more than two-thirds have segregated graduation ceremonies. This is not progress.

For these reasons, he argues, “[r]acialism simply cannot be undone by different or more racialism.”

Thomas is also acutely aware of that truth of human nature that Frederick Douglass observed in 1865: “If nothing is expected of a people, that people will find it difficult to contradict that expectation.”

Black Americans, Thomas believes, are wronged by those who would treat them as a “perpetually inferior caste,” as the dissenters do. He calls it “an insult to individual achievement and cancerous to young minds seeking to push through barriers, rather than consign themselves to permanent victimhood.”

Thomas acknowledges historical injustices, but he won’t allow them to define entire races. Racial determinism is no recipe for progress. Quite the opposite, racially deterministic visions, “historically, have ended disastrously.”

Yes, some members of some racial groups face more challenges than some members of other races — but not all. Again, we are more than stereotypes. Black students are just as heterogenous as anyone else. They include “northerners, southerners, rich and poor, and recent immigrants and descendants of slaves.” Some descend from people who were oppressed — as do some Asians, Jews, and even whites — but some do not.

It will do no good, Thomas argues, to let fester the belief that the color of a person’s skin traps him in a permanently oppressed caste. “What matters,” Thomas says, “is not the barriers [we] face, but how [we] choose to confront them.”

In his steady warning against “elites bearing racial theories,” Thomas echoes Frederick Douglass, who urged well-intentioned white people to “[d]o nothing with us! Your doing with us has already played mischief with us!”

It is right to forbid discrimination, but it is wrong and counterproductive to attempt to cure this disease with more disease. That, at bottom, is why a color-conscious society needs colorblind laws.

GianCarlo Canaparo is a Senior Legal Fellow in the Heritage Foundation’s Meese Center for Legal and Judicial Studies.

The United States Supreme Court just told certain business owners that they have the right to discriminate against people they disagree with, based on the way they think, love and act.

This decision comes at a time when LGBTQI+ discrimination is on the rise throughout the country, in schools, healthcare institutions and workplaces. While it only applies to a narrow group of businesses, the Supreme Court’s decision in 303 Creative is a monumental step backwards in the fight for LGBTQI+ rights. In the face of this threat to progress, Congress must take action and pass greater anti-discrimination protections through the Equality Act.

This decision affirmed that 303 Creative business owner Lorie Smith cannot be compelled to create customizable wedding websites for LGBTQI+ couples because doing so would violate her right to free speech. Going forward, business owners offering original, expressive services are free to discriminate against LGBTQI+ and other marginalized groups. This is a devastating blow to the fight for equal rights and is sure to galvanize existing anti-LGBTQI+ groups who aim to challenge the rights and freedoms of LGBTQI+ people nationwide.

The extremist majority in this case is out of touch with the American people and goes against widespread public opinion that opposes the discrimination of LGBTQI+ people. Over 70 percent of Americans do not believe that businesses should have the right to discriminate against LGBTQI+ people based on religious beliefs. Despite that, more than one third of LGBTQI+ Americans faced some form of discrimination in the last year, in settings ranging from healthcare, employment, housing and public spaces.

Existing structural and cultural forms of discrimination create significant disadvantages for LGBTQI+ Americans as they attempt to move through society looking for equal treatment. Evidence shows that LGBTQI+ Americans’ mental health is significantly impacted when exposed to systemic and prolonged discrimination. Research from the Center for American Progress suggests that discriminatory experiences or fear of discrimination leads to avoidance behaviors like changing the way they dress, hiding a relationship, or avoiding a doctor’s office. Discrimination like that sanctioned by in the303 Creative decision could have drastic implications for marginalized communities attempting to participate in regular daily life, erasing their valuable inputs and experiences.

Only 22 states currently have laws that provide explicit protections against discrimination in public accommodations based on sexual orientation and gender identity. In her dissenting opinion, Justice Sonia Sotomayor affirms the importance of anti-discrimination protections in public accommodation laws, writing “a business that chooses to sell to the public assumes a duty to serve the public without unjust discrimination.” Not only does the 303 Creative decision erode anti-discrimination protections for LGBTQI+ people in public accommodations, it sets a dangerous precedent for the treatment other marginalized communities as well.

As a nonbinary, queer person dedicated to advocating for the rights of LGBTQI+ people, it is becoming increasingly worrying to have to navigate the various types of discrimination that are enacted against my community in this country. While we can organize and testify against harmful legislation, more has to be done to combat discrimination and the laws that permit it. Currently 22 states have no anti-discrimination protections in place related to public accommodation practices.

While it wouldn’t directly address the outcome of the 303 Creative decision, the recently reintroduced Equality Act would greatly expand civil rights protections for LGBTQI+ people to protect against discrimination. We cannot let this decision stymie the important work that needs to be done. Congress must pass the Equality Act and take the next critical step toward expanding civil rights protections for LGBTQI+ people.

In her dissenting opinion, Justice Sotomayor made clear that discrimination is not just about denying goods and services but fosters the “lingering embarrassment” that a person feels when they are denied equal participation. While this decision and the growing anti-LGBTQI+ movement intensifies that lingering embarrassment felt by millions across the country, the LGBTQI+ community remains resilient.

We will fight back. Congress should too.

J. Egler is a policy analyst for LGBTQI+ Policy at American Progress.

I went on to say that, “It’s raising a question that must make liberals and progressives, who see themselves as the champion of racial minorities, uncomfortable. Is it fair to discriminate against one minority, Asian Americans, to increase enrollments at some of America’s top schools for other minorities, Blacks and Hispanics?”

I think I was on to something when I wrote that, but now it looks like I gave liberals too much credit. If the Supreme Court’s 6-3 decision last week knocking down race-based affirmative action in college admissions has made liberals “uncomfortable,” I haven’t found evidence of that.

At the New York Times, the liberal editorial board didn’t seem at all troubled that it was a racial minority — Asian American applicants at Harvard and the University of North Carolina — who were the victims of racial discrimination. The Times wrote, “In striking down affirmative action in higher education on Thursday, the Supreme Court’s conservative majority said it had to do so because the Constitution forbids any form of racial distinction. With a single opinion, the justices overturned decades of precedents that upheld race-conscious admissions policies as consistent with the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause and ignored the reality of modern America, where prejudice and racism endure.”

President Biden said, “The court has effectively ended affirmative action in college admissions, and I strongly, strongly disagree with the court's decision. … Discrimination still exists in America. Today’s decision has not changed that.” 

Al Sharpton said on MSNBC said that the court’s decision was “tantamount to sticking a dagger in our back.” Progressive Democratic Rep. Summer Lee (Pa.) said, “As a Black woman who had the audacity to attend college, I am disgusted that our country just enshrined racial inequity in higher education and economic immobility into law.”

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, in her minority opinion, wrote that the Supreme Court “cements a superficial rule of colorblindness as a constitutional principle in an endemically segregated society where race has always mattered and continues to matter.” And Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, the first Black woman on the Supreme Court, wrote, “With let-them-eat-cake obliviousness, today, the majority pulls the ripcord and announces ‘colorblindness for all’ by legal fiat. But deeming race irrelevant in law does not make it so in life.”

Nothing is simple when it comes to matters of race in America, so negative reaction to the Court’s decision is understandable. But Asian Americans, as Justice Clarence Thomas noted, “can hardly be described as the beneficiaries of racial advantages” given how they’ve been historically marginalized and racially targeted in this country. During World War II, the U.S. government actually rounded up more than 100,000 Japanese Americans and locked them in so-called internment camps. Their only “crime” was that they were Asian American at a time when we were at war with Japan.

But some liberal and progressive intellectuals have invented a way to make it easier to pretend that Asian American students weren’t victims of discrimination at Harvard and the University of North Carolina, and, more than that … that they weren’t even a minority in America! They simply changed the definition of the word “minority.” They came up with a new term — “white adjacent” — to describe Asian Americans who do well. In other words, as far as some on the left are concerned, Asian American students aren’t real minorities. “The idea that Asians are too ‘successful’ to be considered ‘persons of color’ relies on the racist assumption that success is a ‘white’ trait,” is how Patricia Pan Connor put it in the American Conservative in 2021.

Whatever the merits might be for racial diversity on college campuses — and there’s differing opinions on that — Asian American students were in fact victims of racial discrimination. And as I concluded in my column in this space last year: “Whatever their intentions, it sure appears that we’re witnessing a new kind of discrimination based on race these days, one created by woke progressives, the same people who keep telling us how much they care about minority children — apparently as long as those children aren’t Asian kids who do ‘too’ well in school.” 

Bernard Goldberg is an Emmy and an Alfred I. duPont-Columbia University award-winning writer and journalist. He was a correspondent with HBO’s “Real Sports with Bryant Gumbel” for 22 years and previously worked as a reporter for CBS News and as an analyst for Fox News. He is the author of five books and publishes exclusive weekly columns, audio commentaries and Q&As on his Substack page. Follow him on Twitter @BernardGoldberg.

Growing up, I found myself in a world plagued by gangs, drugs and violence. As I got older, I succumbed to my environment, was involved in gang activity and began dealing drugs. My path took a dramatic turn when I was sentenced to 25 years in federal prison for dealing crack cocaine. The penalty for 1 gram of crack cocaine at that time was the same as 100 grams of powder cocaine — making it a 100-1 ratio. The only difference between these two substances is the baking soda added to cook it; they are the same drug. The war on drugs specifically targeted individuals like me, particularly in communities of color, leading to harsh and unequal punishments that did not fit the crime.

During my time in prison, I made a conscious decision to change my life. I sought out an education and a connection with something greater than myself. Throughout my 17 and a half years in federal prison, I took numerous college courses, taught various subjects and earned multiple degrees. Despite my efforts to appeal my sentence, it seemed like an uphill battle.

A glimmer of hope emerged when I was introduced to #cut50, the organization now known as Dream.Org, that was fighting for the passage of the First Step Act. In 2010, the Fair Sentencing Act passed, which reduced the 100-to-1 crack cocaine sentencing disparity to 18-to-1. Unfortunately the law was only applied moving forward, meaning people like me, convicted under the now-outdated crack laws, were still stuck serving 100-to-1 sentences that Congress had just thrown out. The First Step Act aimed to fix that by making the Fair Sentencing Act retroactive.

With the support of Dream.Org and my attorney, I became the first person in the Southern District of California to litigate the First Step Act, paving the way for potential relief. As a result of all these wonderful people helping me out, my sentence was reduced by five years, allowing for my immediate release. Seven days later, I reentered society, teaming up with Dream.Org to advocate for comprehensive equality in sentencing. Although I benefited from the 18-1 ratio, which was a significant step forward, it is essential to continue the fight until a 1-1 ratio is achieved.

Those who oppose the EQUAL Act often fail to comprehend the human aspect of these unjust sentences. We are talking about individuals who have served 10, 15 or even 20 years in prison, with some serving life sentences. These men and women are not statistics; they are our fellow citizens, who have families and communities to return to. Many have undergone profound personal transformation during their incarceration, actively seeking education, spiritual growth, and a genuine desire to positively impact society.

The goal of passing the EQUAL Act and ensuring its retroactivity is to rectify the wrongs committed under an unjust system. By providing these individuals with an opportunity for redemption, we embrace the core principles of fairness, equality and justice. As a nation that prides itself on these values, we must not turn a blind eye to the suffering caused by outdated policies.

These individuals are not simply seeking to reenter society and remain crime-free. They want to be contributing members who can serve as role models for younger generations. By addressing the injustices of the past, we can tap into their potential to affect meaningful change and inspire others to follow a different path.

I am now dedicated to using my freedom to make a positive impact on my community. Through organizations like Shaphat Outreach, I work with young people, teaching them life skills and helping them steer clear of the traps that ensnared me in my youth. I have witnessed firsthand the transformative power of education and mentorship in empowering young individuals to choose a path of success and fulfillment.

This Fourth of July, as we celebrate the ideals of freedom and justice, let us remember that true freedom can only be achieved when everyone is treated equally under the law. Let us honor the principles upon which our nation was founded by supporting the EQUAL Act and ensuring that justice prevails for all.

Together, we can create a future where equality and justice are not just lofty ideals but living realities for every American. We owe it to the families and communities affected. It is time to pass the EQUAL Act and pave the way for a brighter and more equitable future.

Robert Wood was born and raised in southeast San Diego. He was the first inmate in the southern district of California to get relief based on litigating the First Step Act. He now serves as a member of both the Federal Prisons Priority Committee and on the board of directors for The Prison Scholar Fund.

However, progress must continue to be made in defense of equality and the civil rights of all of our fellow Americans. On this Fourth of July — when we have a chance to honor those who have fought for our country’s freedoms — we must stand up for our veterans and Congress must pass the Restore Honor to Service Members Act. 

This legislation would help to right the wrongs of "Don’t ask, don’t tell", a policy that prohibited service members from being open about their sexual orientation. As a result of "Don’t ask, don’t tell," early estimates showed 14,000 service members were discharged between 1994 and 2011 because of who they loved.

These discharges as a result of these expulsions were categorized as “other than honorable,” “general” or “dishonorable,” which has made it difficult for those veterans to find employment and resulted in the denial of benefits due to less-than-honorable discharges. Since the repeal of the policy, a process was implemented that would allow those who were impacted to upgrade their discharge status, thereby receiving benefits they were rightly owed for their service to our country. 

However, this process, while well-meaning, is onerous and has not been working as intended. Only more than 1,200 of the estimated 14,000 "Don’t ask, don’t tell" discharges have had their status upgraded — this is less than 10 percent over the course of 12 years. This is unacceptable, disgraceful and an insult to our nation’s veterans. 

The purpose of the Restore Honor to Service Members Act is to make the upgrade process for veterans much easier, resulting in many more veterans receiving the benefits they are entitled to. This bill is objectively good and should have strong bipartisan support, as our veterans earned these benefits, in defense of us all. 

This year marks the 30th anniversary of "Don’t ask don’t tell." Sadly, decades later, our country’s veterans are still being denied benefits based on discriminatory legislation, despite its repeal years ago. 

Next Fourth of July, we hope to celebrate the Restore Honor to Service Members Act having been signed into law, just as this year we are celebrating the repeal of the Defense Of Marriage Act and the passage of the Respect For Marriage Act. 

Earlier this month, Sens. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.) and Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) introduced the Global Respect Act in the U.S. Senate, which would sanction those who perpetrate human rights abuses against members of the LGBTQ community. If our country’s leaders are serious about the United States standing up for human rights around the world — a noble goal — they must also be sure to defend those same rights here at home. The Restore Honor to Service Members Act is one such way of defending human rights in the United States and showing the world that we recognize when we have made mistakes in our past, and are committed to working toward righting those wrongs, for a better future for all. 

No doubt politics will gain more attention than policy issues given the coming election year. Importantly though, amid the noise of the upcoming elections, this substantive policy matter should be dealt with in a responsible manner. Our nation’s veterans deserve this and furthermore, this legislation is long overdue. Ultimately, decency must win the day in defense of the dignity of our nation’s heroes. 

Alex Walton is the national political director of Log Cabin Republicans @applevalleyalex, Kelsey Callahan is the senior director of special projects at the Joseph Rainey Center for Public Policy @Kelsetta, and J.P. Carroll is a senior fellow for national security and inclusive governance with the Joseph Rainey Center for Public Policy @JPCarrollDC1. 

A new poll from State Policy Network, where I am a fellow, provides a more exact measurement. Only 3 in 10 voters rate the nation’s performance on ensuring all Americans are treated equally as “good” or “excellent.” Furthermore, a greater number, 34 percent, say we are doing a poor or failing job at ensuring all Americans have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Americans think we are falling short on delivering the promise of our founding. This isn’t a partisan issue — Republicans and Democrats give the nation similarly low scores.

These low scores are striking in part because equality is such an important value to most Americans. More than 80 percent, across political affiliations, believe that all people are equal regardless of race, ethnicity, gender or other personal characteristics; that everyone deserves the chance to be successful; and that Americans should be free to live how they want. 

An additional question in the State Policy Network poll asked voters how much progress we have made since our nation’s founding on providing the right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness to all. On this metric, two-thirds gave the country high marks — again with no differences between partisans. 

The variance between the responses to the two questions comes down to framing. When people think about the state of the nation today, they recall the news cycle, with stories of racial disparities in police abuse, clashes over the use of race in college admissions, debates about how and when gender-affirming care should be accessible, and public-school systems ignoring plans ensuring disabled students receive an education. Some pieces may be exaggerated for clicks, but many show heartbreaking glimpses into the real and complicated problems our nation grapples with. It is easy to feel as though we are further away from the original ideals of the nation than ever before.

But when looking backward, the progress America has made toward equality in the nearly 250 years since the Declaration of Independence is undeniable. We have abolished slavery, extended suffrage to all classes, races and genders. The Civil Rights Act, Fair Housing Act and Americans with Disabilities Act further aimed to eliminate discrimination so all Americans could have equal opportunities. 

The change has been more than governmental. In 1958, just 38 percent of Americans said they would vote for a Black presidential candidate and only 4 percent approved of interracial marriage. Those numbers have grown to 96 and 94 percent, respectively. Over a shorter 35-year timeline, acceptance of gay and lesbian relationships has grown from 32 percent to 79 percent. Since 1937, the number of Americans willing to vote for a woman for president has nearly tripled to 93 percent. Given our nation’s history, it’s hard to believe 7 percent of voters today say we have made “no progress at all” toward equality since the nation’s founding.

It is easy to dwell on the fact that our society has fallen short of a goal as lofty as “equality for all,” especially in an age where we have constant access to reports of bad actors and every unintentional misstep can be recorded on a cellphone and enshrined online forever. Indeed, we should take stock of those who are denied their rights to equal opportunity, and how, so we can continue our steady march of progress.

But this is a great time of year to pause and remember how far we have come and, more importantly and often overlooked, how unified we are in our desire to do better.

Erin Norman is the Lee Family Fellow and Senior Messaging Strategist at State Policy Network. 

In 1951, Germany’s first post-war chancellor, Konrad Adenauer, courageously did what no nation defeated in war had ever done: accepted responsibility for the wrongs committed by the Nazi regime — wrongs he called “unspeakable crimes against Jews.” Equally unique, 23 Jewish organizations from around the world came together a year later and formed the Conference on Jewish Material Claims Against Germany (Claims Conference), which was given the responsibility to negotiate with Germany on behalf of Holocaust survivors.

Since then, Germany has provided over $90 billion in compensation and is an exemplar of coming to terms with the past. It is a stronger, more vibrant, more tolerant democracy for having done so. While no amount of compensation can make survivors whole for what they and their families lost, we have a moral responsibility to provide a greater measure of dignity to survivors in their declining years than they suffered in their youth at the hands of the Nazis.

Since 2009, I have been the lead negotiator for the Claims Conference. Because we are dealing with German public funds, the negotiations are tough and anything but routine. Through these ongoing negotiations, we have dramatically expanded the universe of Jewish Holocaust survivors eligible for compensation and social services by liberalizing criteria for programs and increasing payments. We have liberalized eligibility for programs and services for those who endured concentration camps, those who went into hiding to save their lives, those forced into ghettos and similar places of incarceration, those who lived under false identity, those whose liberty or movement was restricted, and those who fled the Nazi regime in certain circumstances. We also negotiated special one-time payments for those who were child survivors and those who were on the Kindertransports, forced to leave their parents behind.

The most recent negotiations took place in Berlin just a few weeks ago. The total amount achieved for social welfare services and direct compensation for Holocaust survivors came to approximately $1.4 billion for 2024. Critically needed home care, food, and medical and welfare services, which keep over 100,000 elderly, poor survivors in their own homes, will see an additional $105.2 million. A special annual payment to the poorest of the poor will impact more than 128,000 Holocaust survivors living worldwide.

With all of these expansions and liberalizations of funds, programs and services, there remains one thing we must still deliver: Holocaust education. Survivors rightly fear the world is not only forgetting the Holocaust, they worry that without their first-hand testimony, the lessons of the Holocaust will be lost. They see the murder of more than 6 million Jews — roughly two-thirds of Europe’s Jewish population at the onset of World War II — being denied or distorted. They see how antisemitism, the fundamental underpinning of the racist, Nazi ideology, is now rising.

This fear is not unwarranted. Recent surveys from the Claims Conference of six countries, including the United States, found about 31 percent of Americans severely undercount the number of Jews murdered during the Holocaust. Nearly half of those surveyed cannot name a single one of the more than 40,000 concentration camps and ghettos that existed in Europe during the Holocaust. And almost 60 percent of young Americans aged 18 to 39, cannot identify Auschwitz.

Without robust Holocaust education programming, the facts and lessons of the Holocaust will be lost. Survivors know what happens when intolerance goes unchecked, when minorities are stigmatized and persecuted, when the rule of law and democracy are cast aside, and when average people are silent in the face of discrimination. They know from personal experience the consequences of ignorance and complacency. They have seen how bigoted thoughts quickly become hurtful words that turn into irrevocable violence.

We cannot start down that path again. We must be accountable to the facts of what happened during the Holocaust. Millions of Jews and others were murdered. Entire families and communities were summarily killed. Those who survived were left with nothing; their businesses, homes, bank accounts and personal possessions were confiscated, and their bodies were abused. For those who are still with us today, they endured all of this while they were only children.

We must remain steadfast in supporting services and payments for survivors. But we must also focus on Holocaust education that will simultaneously keep the testimony of millions of Jewish souls alive while educating future generations, Jewish and non-Jewish alike, to ensure that atrocities like the Holocaust never happen again. This is what we hope to achieve when we sit down each year to negotiate with the German government.

What Holocaust survivors lost is incalculable. There is no way to replace a mother’s kiss or a father’s hug. No dollar amount can be exchanged for shared laughter among brothers and sisters. But we can provide health care for the scars of suffering. We can provide food and economic support so survivors can live out their remaining days with the dignity stolen from them decades ago. And we can provide for education to ensure that the history of the Holocaust lives on.

We will continue to negotiate to ensure every survivor is provided for in their final years. But for Holocaust education, society as a whole must join in this commitment. Only together, all of us as a global society, can we ensure that future generations are able to study and understand the lessons of the Holocaust to make the world a better place tomorrow.

This must be our collective accomplishment if we are to succeed. Only then can we say, “never again.”

Stuart E. Eizenstat helped negotiate the 1978 Inspectors General Act as President Carter’s chief White House domestic policy adviser; he is the author of “President Carter: The White House Years." He also held several senior positions in the Clinton administration

With Republicans poised to continue their anti-choice crusade in the run-up to the 2024 election, abortion is likely to remain a motivating force for voters across the country, and thus a major strength for the Democratic Party, particularly in swing states where reproductive rights hang in the balance. 

This certainly was the case in 2022, which was the most successful midterm election year for a president’s party in over two decades, as well as the first time since 1934 that a president’s party gained governorships during his first term. Messaging on abortion rights specifically — and GOP extremism generally — propelled Democratic candidates to win statewide victories over far-right opponents in purple states, including Arizona, Georgia, Nevada and Pennsylvania. One of the biggest success stories for the pro-choice movement was in Michigan, where Democrats won major statewide races, flipped control of the legislature and passed a ballot measure codifying abortion rights. 

The momentum behind this issue hasn’t slowed in 2023. The 11-point victory of Judge Janet Protasiewicz in her race for Wisconsin’s Supreme Court earlier this year marked a stunning rebuke of the Republican Party’s extreme anti-choice positions. In their advertising, Democratic groups aggressively targeted Protasiewicz’s conservative opponent, former Wisconsin Supreme Court justice Dan Kelly, who reportedly offered legal advice to a Wisconsin anti-abortion group prior to his appointment to the court in 2016. Protasiewicz argued that, if elected, Kelly would likely support keeping an extreme abortion ban dating back to the 1840s, which had been nullified by Roe v. Wade, on the books. 

Opinion polling offers additional insight into the enduring political potency of abortion, as well as the electoral peril Republicans could continue to face as a result. According to Gallup, support for abortion rights is at its highest level in nearly three decades, and record numbers of voters will only consider voting for candidates who share their views on the issue. This bodes poorly for the GOP, as polls routinely find upwards of 70 percent of Americans saying abortion should be legal in all or most cases. Further, a majority of the all-important voter group, independents, favor Congress codifying federal abortion rights (53 percent), as do an even stronger majority of independent women (63 percent), per USA Today polling. 

There is little question that the abortion bans imposed in Republican-led states, while varying in degree, have put the GOP out of step with most of the country — yet more in lockstep with their party’s base. This dynamic is illustrative of the broader challenge the Republican Party faces with needing to appease its increasingly far-right constituents, while still remaining nationally viable.  

Rep. Nancy Mace (R-S.C.), who identifies as pro-life, is one of the few prominent Republicans who has admitted that the GOP’s anti-choice positions are too extreme and has pleaded with her party to have more “compassion” and “common sense” on abortion. Though, the way the two GOP presidential frontrunners – former President Donald Trump and Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis — are handling the issue suggests that they too recognize the political catch-22 facing their party. 

Trump recently claimed on his right-wing social media platform that he was able to “kill Roe v. Wade” by appointing three conservative justices to the high court yet has evaded questions over whether he would support a national abortion ban. Likewise, DeSantis touted Florida’s six-week abortion ban to evangelical and ultra-conservative voters in Iowa, yet avoided discussing the issue in New Hampshire, where the Republican electorate is more moderate.  

While the Republican Party has not yet articulated a uniform position on the circumstances under which abortion should be restricted, many are quietly coalescing around a national 15-week ban. House Republican Conference Chair Elise Stefanik (R-N.Y.) signaled last month that her caucus would begin the process of introducing legislation to this effect, which is similar to what Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) proposed eight weeks before last year’s midterm elections.  

Even though a 15-week limit represents an ostensible middle-ground between a so-called “heartbeat bill” and the parameters allowed under Roe, any discussion of a federal ban hurts Republicans immensely. 

For starters, it undercuts the “states’ rights” argument that traditional conservatives have advanced for years, in addition to nationalizing the issue, which inherently plays to Democrats’ advantage, given where public opinion lies. Even though Democratic abortion rights messaging has proven to be less compelling in states where access is not at risk, such as New York, this will certainly change if House Republicans move ahead with a national ban of any kind, as could the 2024 Senate map, which currently favors Republicans. 

A national ban would also be a gift to President Biden, who is poised to run the most overtly pro-abortion general election campaign in modern history, with an eye toward swing states like North Carolina — which he lost in 2020, though could now make inroads in, given the statewide backlash to a similar ban passed by the GOP legislature. 

To be sure, a number of other issues that are less favorable to Democrats — the economy, crime and immigration — will also be at play in 2024. But if the party is able to keep abortion rights as a focal point of the campaign — in a way that ties the issue back to GOP extremism generally — Biden has a good chance of returning to the White House with a Democratic Congress in tow.

Douglas E. Schoen is a political consultant who served as an adviser to former President Clinton and to the 2020 presidential campaign of Michael Bloomberg. He is the author of “The End of Democracy? Russia and China on the Rise and America in Retreat.” Zoe Young is vice president of Schoen Cooperman Research.