The Supreme Court’s ban on affirmative action means colleges will struggle to meet goals of diversity and equal opportunity
After extensive deliberation, the Supreme Court has delivered a landmark ruling that effectively prohibits the use of race-based affirmative action in college admissions. Race-blind admissions processes will further exacerbate existing inequalities and undermine the recognition of the unique challenges that Black, Hispanic, and Native American students encounter throughout the admissions process. By disregarding the significance of race, these approaches risk creating a wider divide between equal opportunity and communities of color.
This decision marks a significant setback for colleges, which have relied on this tool for over 40 years to enhance racial diversity on their campuses and compensate for decades of both explicit and implicit race-based exclusion. Colleges must now explore options like targeted recruitment programs and using other metrics such as household income and wealth as substitutes for race-based admissions. However, flagship schools from states that previously banned affirmative action and used these alternative tactics have a poor track record of success in achieving meaningful diversity gains in their student body without using affirmative action.
How state policies that censor race and gender discussions in classrooms maintain economic inequality: Florida has adopted particularly dangerous laws to limit academic freedom
In the wake of Black Lives Matter protests calling for justice following the 2020 murder of George Floyd, right-wing backlash has taken concrete form in highly coordinated campaigns against books, programs, or curricular resources designed to analyze and address systemic racism, sexism, and homophobia. Over the past two years in state legislatures across the United States, campaigns targeting a caricatured version of “critical race theory” (CRT) have evolved into intertwined attacks on truth itself and the workplace rights of teachers, librarians, and other educators.
A 2022 study documented how hundreds of state and local anti-“CRT” campaigns have been “fueled by powerful conservative entities (media, organizations, foundations, PACs, and politicians) that exploit and foment local frustration and dissent over what should be taught and learned in schools.” Such fear-mongering has appeared especially effective in districts facing rapid demographic shifts. School districts where white student enrollment fell by more than 18% since 2000 were more than three times as likely to experience local anti-“CRT” campaigns than districts that saw little or no enrollment change in white students.
Anti-“CRT” campaigns have emboldened school boards and state legislatures to ban teaching about racism and sexism in classrooms and to disempower educators from teaching about the true legacy of white supremacy. Since January 2021, 44 states have introduced bills or taken other steps to limit how teachers can discuss racism and sexism.
Florida in particular has emerged as a primary battleground over proposals to censor truthful teaching in schools while restricting the academic freedom and union rights of educators. Earlier last year, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis and the Florida state legislature enacted the Stop W.OK.E. Act, an acronym standing for “Wrong to our Kids and Employees.” This law limits how K–12 public schools, public colleges and universities, and Florida employers discuss race, gender, and sexual identity.
Supreme Court justices’ close ties with business interests threaten workers’ rights
Workers should pay attention to news that Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas has been wined and dined by a billionaire businessman for years without disclosures, while Justice Neil Gorsuch sold property to a law firm executive who has been involved in numerous cases before the court. It will come as no surprise that justices receiving lavish gifts are going to side with the interests of their wealthy benefactors when a case comes before them involving business interests versus workers’ rights.
We can all hope the law will prevail, and that some of the moves to install new codes of ethics can restore some of the integrity of the court, but the Republican-appointed justices’ track record is dismal when it comes to empowering workers.
The Supreme Court has played an important role in the decades-long campaign to erode workers’ rights in this country. In particular, the Supreme Court has issued rulings that have undermined everything from workers’ rights to form unions, the ability to build strong unions, and health and safety on the job. This term, the Supreme Court once again sided with corporations in Glacier Northwest v. Teamsters to make it easier for employers to sue unions over their decision to strike.
Beyond Glacier, here’s a rundown of several key decisions that hurt workers just in the last few years:
Counties have far more unspent ARPA fiscal relief funds than cities and states: Funds should be used to make equity-enhancing investments
Most of the $350 billion in State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (SLFRF) allocated under the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) remains unspent. County governments, in particular, have been slow to spend or obligate their fiscal recovery funds compared with cities and states. Those that have spent a large share of their allocation have generally used the funds for basic revenue replacement, which makes it less likely counties will take advantage of the flexibility allowed under SLFRF rules to make new investments to advance equity. Counties have myriad opportunities to use remaining SLFRF dollars to help working families, and advocates should encourage them to do so.
County governments were granted $65.1 billion in fiscal recovery funds, and $52.4 million of that went to 882 larger counties that have more frequent reporting requirements than smaller counties. As of the last reporting deadline on December 31, these larger counties have spent less than 27% of that money and obligated just 41% of it. This is substantially less than the pace of SLFRF spending by cities and states, as shown in Figure A below. Counties only have until December 31, 2024, to obligate these funds.
The Supreme Court sided with corporations over workers—again
Last week, the Supreme Court handed employers one more cudgel to use in trying to squelch worker organizing: the threat of a state court lawsuit for economic harm. In Glacier Northwest Inc. v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters Local Union No. 174, the Supreme Court upended decades of labor law precedent by allowing an employer to file a lawsuit for damages caused by spoilage of a day’s worth of product during a strike.
There’s been a lot of writing about the case, but here’s the upshot: Workers still clearly have the right to strike, but the Court’s decision opens the floodgates for employers to weaponize financially burdensome state court litigation as a pressure tactic against workers and unions. The decision could have been worse—it contains some guardrails that may help limit the damage and provide unions with defenses because it doesn’t allow lawsuits for economic harm under any and all circumstances. But it’s still a very harmful decision that hands employers another way to suppress worker organizing and reduce worker power.
As with abortion, guns, and so many other issues, Glacier shows just how out of touch the Supreme Court is with the national pulse. The opinion was issued amid a wave of union organizing and worker action not seen in decades, including at household-name companies like Starbucks, REI, and Kellogg’s. Television and film writers—members of the Writers Guild—have been on strike for a month. Public opinion of unions is the highest it’s been in my lifetime, and a majority of workers surveyed say they’d join a union if they could.
However, only around 6% of private-sector workers are unionized. Our weak and outdated labor laws make it terribly hard to unionize, and employers routinely violate these laws by firing, threatening, and otherwise retaliating against workers who try to exercise their rights. This context makes last week’s decision even worse; it’s enraging and tragic that the Supreme Court has once again put its finger on the scale in favor of corporate America.
Troubling provisions to watch in the new debt limit deal
The debt limit deal that Congress passed and President Biden will sign tonight may avert the economic crisis that would be caused by the U.S. government defaulting on its payments. But it’s worth reiterating that we shouldn’t be in this deal-making situation to begin with.
“Debt limit deals” are a way to force policy change through a backdoor by holding the U.S. (and global) economy hostage. Accepting that “debt limit deals” are just business as usual every time we approach the ceiling basically means that one political party can gain access to an inordinately powerful “hack” around the normal democratic process so long as some arbitrary conditions prevail.
Republicans have a majority in just one chamber of Congress, and face a president of the opposing party. Normally, this would mean they would have to argue their case for policy changes on the floor of the House, and compromise more often than not. However, just because we were about to cross over the utterly arbitrary debt limit, Republicans magically gained enormous amounts of leverage to dictate policy—including a lot of policy divorced from the specific conversation of addressing the debt and deficits. This is not a sensible way to govern.
This deal looks significantly less harmful than the original McCarthy proposal that passed the House last month, but it still contains several worrying provisions. Notably, it still includes a concession to expand and tighten work reporting requirements for some of the most vulnerable Americans to access the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF). These should never have been part of a debt ceiling discussion.
U.S. economy added 339,000 jobs in May: Labor market remains strong despite volatile household survey
Below, EPI senior economist Elise Gould shares her insights on the jobs report released this morning, which showed 339,000 jobs added in May. Read the full Twitter thread here.
The job report for May shows notable employment gains in education and health services, professional and business services, government, and leisure and hospitality in May. pic.twitter.com/c36lnWkCNR
— Elise Gould (@eliselgould) June 2, 2023
While the boost in govt jobs is welcome news, state and local employment is still down 1.4% since Feb 2020. Private-sector jobs fell further and came back stronger due to largescale policy investments. Lagging public sector jobs is concerning for the vital services they provide. pic.twitter.com/1s2QgFu2Zc
— Elise Gould (@eliselgould) June 2, 2023
The household survey is a bit mixed but has more volatility so I don’t think represents a general cooling off, especially in light of the strong payroll numbers for May. The drop in employment seems to be isolated within self-employment but wage and salary jobs rose in May.
— Elise Gould (@eliselgould) June 2, 2023
After hitting 80.8% in April, the share of workers 25-54 years old with a job edged down but remains higher than pre-pandemic levels, second highest level in over 20 years (since 2001). pic.twitter.com/NNkTPJPSDi
— Elise Gould (@eliselgould) June 2, 2023
Iowa governor signs one of the most dangerous rollbacks of child labor laws in the country: 14 states have now introduced bills putting children at risk
In a March 14 report, we documented how states across the country are attempting to weaken child labor protections, just as violations of these standards are on the rise. The trend reflects a coordinated multi-industry push to expand employer access to low-wage labor and weaken state child labor laws in ways that contradict federal protections. And the recent uptick in state legislative activity is linked to longer-term industry-backed goals to rewrite federal child labor laws and other worker protections for the whole country.
Last Friday, this concerted attack on child labor safeguards further expanded. Iowa Governor Kim Reynolds signed an expansive bill enacting numerous changes to the state’s child labor laws, including:
- allowing employers to hire teens as young as 14 for previously prohibited hazardous jobs in industrial laundries or as young as 15 in light assembly work;
- allowing state agencies to waive restrictions on hazardous work for 16–17-year-olds in a long list of dangerous occupations, including demolition, roofing, excavation, and power-driven machine operation;
- extending hours to allow teens as young as 14 to work six-hour nightly shifts during the school year;
- allowing restaurants to have teens as young as 16 serve alcohol; and
- limiting state agencies’ ability to impose penalties for future employer violations.
Job openings ticked up slightly in April as layoffs fell: Labor market remains steady and does not show signs of rapid cooling
Below, EPI senior economist Elise Gould offers her initial insights on today’s release of the Job Openings and Labor Turnover Survey (JOLTS) for April. Read the full Twitter thread here.
Broad child poverty data for the Asian American, Native Hawaiian, and Pacific Islander population don’t tell the whole economic story
Broad poverty data understate the extent of deprivation among Asian American, Native Hawaiian, and Pacific Islander (AANHPI) children. At first glance, poverty appears to just disproportionately affect Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander children, as Asian American children seem to be nearly as likely as white children to be poor (see Figure A). However, wide economic disparities between AANHPI families and children of different backgrounds hide under these broad statistics.
