Pang Ying:Hello, listeners. It has been a while. I’m Pang Ying, and Zhan Qingyun is beside me.

Why have we suddenly resurfaced? Because a topic closely related to both our programs—affirmative action—was recently overturned, so Zhan and I returned to discuss it. Two episodes of her programThinking Like a Lawyercovered US affirmative action, and I also mentioned it in Thinking Like a Debater.

Pang Ying:What does it mean? Affirmative action is a compensatory measure for oppressed minorities in the United States.

Here we mean its use in elite university admissions. Applicants identify their race; Black and Latino candidates have a much greater chance of admission. With the same grades, admission is difficult for white students, extremely difficult for Asian students, easier for Latino students, and much easier for Black students.

It was repeatedly challenged. The Supreme Court previously justified affirmative action not as compensation for past wrongs but as helping universities achieve diversity: a diverse student body learns from one another and creates a better academic environment for everyone.

In 2003 Justice Sandra Day O’Connor called it transitional, hoping that after twenty-five years—by 2028—underrepresented minorities would no longer need additional help.

In 2023 it was overturned six to two. Justice Jackson recused herself because she sat on Harvard’s Board of Overseers. All six Republican-appointed justices voted to overturn it; two Democratic appointees dissented.

Using the framework from my program, this concerns equality, equity, and justice.

Equality gives people of different heights identical stools to see over a wall. It looks equal, but the tall person sees the match and the short person cannot.

Equity gives the short person a high stool and the tall person a low one, placing their eyes at the same level so both can see.

Justice removes the systemic barrier—the wall itself—so everyone can see naturally and comfortably, regardless of height.