An attorney involved in the recent Supreme Court affirmative action case has responded to a claim made by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson in her dissent. Jackson stated that black newborn babies are more likely to die if they aren’t treated by a black physician. In her dissent, Jackson aimed to show that race-based admissions can be a matter of life or death for minority groups in the Supreme Court’s ruling on Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, which ended affirmative action in college admissions. However, the claim made by Jackson was strongly criticized by Ted Frank, a senior attorney with the Hamilton Lincoln Law Institute, who deemed it mathematically impossible.
Frank pointed out that Jackson’s claim of a black physician more than doubling the likelihood of survival for high-risk black newborns was implausible. He highlighted that even if 40 percent of black newborns died, which would result in thousands of dead infants every week, the survival rate would still be 60 percent, thus making it mathematically impossible to double. In reality, the survival rate for black newborns is over 99 percent. Frank questioned how Jackson could make such an innumerate mistake and argued that the cited study did not support her claim.
The study cited in the amicus brief, which represented a group of medical colleges, examined mortality rates for Florida newborns between 1992 and 2015. According to Frank, the study showed a 0.13 percent to 0.2 percent improvement in survival rates for black newborns with black pediatricians. However, there was no statistically significant improvement for black obstetricians. Frank asserted that either the amicus brief misunderstood the paper or invented the statistic, and he also suggested that the study itself appeared to be flawed.
The law firm Norton Rose Fulbright issued a filing to the Supreme Court docket, requesting clarification on Jackson’s argument about black newborn mortality rates. The firm stated that the study’s principal finding was a decrease in the mortality rate for black newborns when under the supervision of a black physician compared to white newborns. The firm emphasized the difference between survival and mortality, stating that decreased mortality often indicates a higher rate of survival. It called for clarification of the statement made in the amicus brief.
Jonathan Turley, a law professor at George Washington University, commented on the abundance of advocacy groups filing amicus briefs in major Supreme Court cases. He expressed his concerns about the justices’ ability to judge the veracity and accuracy of such studies. Turley argued that the justices simply choose between rivaling studies to support their opinions, highlighting the potential deficiencies in relying on statistical and study-based evidence.
In the Supreme Court’s ruling against the universities’ policies, Chief Justice John Roberts argued that students should be treated as individuals rather than as part of a collective group such as a race. He criticized universities for focusing on the color of individuals’ skin instead of their merits and skills. The majority, consisting of Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett, joined Roberts in his decision. Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Jackson dissented, with Sotomayor voicing concerns about potential racial inequality entrenchment in the US resulting from the ruling.
In conclusion, the recent affirmative action case in the Supreme Court sparked a debate about the impact of race-based admissions on minority groups. Justice Jackson’s claim about the mortality rates of black newborns without black physicians was challenged by a senior attorney, Ted Frank, who deemed it mathematically impossible. The study cited in the amicus brief supporting Jackson’s claim also raised doubts about its accuracy. The law firm Norton Rose Fulbright requested clarification on the argument made by Jackson, emphasizing the difference between survival and mortality. The criticism raised by Frank and the request for clarification by the law firm highlight the challenges of relying on statistical evidence in legal arguments. The Supreme Court ruling against the universities’ policies emphasized treating students as individuals rather than focusing on their race. The dissenting justices feared that the ruling could perpetuate racial inequality in the US.
Source link
