You are so fucked, America.

“There are those who contend that it does not benefit African Americans to get them into the University of Texas where they do not do well, as opposed to having them go to a less-advanced school, a slower-track school, where they do well,” he said.

“One of the [legal] briefs pointed out that most of the black scientists in this country don’t come from schools like the University of Texas. They come from lesser schools where they do not feel that they’re being pushed ahead in classes that are too fast for them.” […]

“I’m just not impressed by the fact that the University of Texas may have fewer [black students if the admissions policy changes]. Maybe it ought to have fewer. And maybe, when you take more, the number of blacks, really competent blacks, admitted to lesser schools, turns out to be less,” he added.

It’s shocking that in 2015, a Supreme Court justice can casually imply that an entire race is intellectually inferior to another, especially when he shares a bench with someone of that race. According to Elon James White, Scalia was using this brief as a basis for his racist views, yet somehow missed another brief filed in the case he was considering, which refuted the former.

Amici curiae are leaders in the field of quantitative social science and statistical methodology.  They  file this brief in order to  point out to the Court the substantial  methodological  flaws in the research  discussed in the Brief  Amici Curiae  for Richard Sander and Stuart Taylor, Jr. in Support of Neither Party.   Based  on  over 255 collective years of social-science research  experience,  amici have concluded that the research on which that brief relies, Professor Sander’s  “mismatch” hypothesis, is unreliable, failing basic tenets of research design.

But if America had just one racist Justice on the bench, I might have let this one slide. But as Liz Goodwin reports

[Justice] Roberts asked again and again when schools could stop considering race and when affirmative action would end

Roberts also challenged UT’s classroom diversity argument “What unique perspective does an Af-Am student bring to a physics class?”

This is entirely the wrong question. Consider:

P1. There is no difference in intelligence between races.
P2. Systemic racism makes it less likely that some races will enter college or university than would be predicted by population share.
C1. Smart people of said races will be passed over in favor of less intelligent people from another race.

This argument is well-justified when it comes to sexism. I just spotted this article yesterday, in fact:

Firms with a strong-female influence on their boards performed 36% better in terms of return on equity than those that didn’t. MSCI defined a “strong-female influence” as having three or more female directors, or a female CEO and another female director. Those firms had a 10.1% return on equity, a measure of the profits a company is garnering for shareholders.

Other studies have reached similar conclusions. A Credit Suisse analysis of large companies with and without female directors published in Sept. 2014 said that the stock market performance of organizations with women on their boards was 5% better than those with only men.

Those differences aren’t because women are inherently better at financial management than men, nor because they bring a unique perspective. It’s because companies that discriminate against women are more likely to snub talented women, in favor of male peers with less talent. The result is inferior performance.

The argument is no different for minority students. So how, after decades of debate on affirmative action, can someone on your Supreme Court be clueless to this?

America, you need to implement some serious reforms, and stat.