S1: It's time for KPBS Midday Edition on today's show. Recent cases have been challenging. Civil rights laws will have scholars weigh in. Then hear from a San Diego civil rights icon. I'm Jade Hindman with conversations that keep you informed , inspired , and make you think. Section two of the Voting Rights Act prohibits discrimination in voting practices and procedures. Now that section is being challenged at the Supreme Court. What it could mean for redistricting , plus a UCSD scholarship for black students faced a legal challenge. We'll talk about the outcome and impact of that case. Then a conversation with San Diego's civil rights icon , Harold Brown. That's ahead on Midday Edition. The signing of the 1965 Voting Rights Act symbolized a turning point in American democracy. It wasn't until then that discrimination in voting was banned. It meant outlawing policies like literacy tests and poll taxes. It meant racial gerrymandering could be challenged in court. But in the last decade or so , that landmark 1965 turning point for American democracy has been turning backwards , with today's Supreme Court gutting the Voting Rights Act case by case. Well , now the court is weighing Louisiana v coal at question is whether to keep section two of the Voting Rights Act , which prohibits discrimination in voting practices and procedures or basically eliminate it. Joining me to make sense of this is KC Dominguez. She is a professor of political science at University of San Diego. Professor , welcome.
S2: Thanks for inviting me.
S1: So glad to have you here. You've always got some great insights Sites on these cases. Um , so to be clear , this is still a pending ruling by the Supreme Court.
S2: Louisiana. The Louisiana State Legislature drew a map of congressional districts that that only gave one black , one majority black congressional district to a state where African American voters make up 31% of the population. So a group of black voters and other groups challenged that 2022 map under section two of the Voting Rights Act. And after going through the courts for several years , they found the state was basically ordered to redraw its map to create a second majority black district. So in 2024 , they passed that district and then a group of self-described non-African American voters , asked the Supreme Court to strike down that new map on the grounds that it was violating the voting rights under the UN , equal protection rights under the 14th and 15th Amendments. Of the non-black voters. And so that's the case that the Supreme Court heard in October. Okay.
S1: Okay. So let's talk a little bit more about the Voting Rights Act and specifically section two , which is at issue in this case.
S2: And so that basically means all kinds of election rules. And a lot of the cases that are brought under section two are redistricting cases. But there's other kinds of cases as well. Various kinds of election rules that limit the ability of racial minority groups to participate and participate meaningfully in the election process , that is , to elect people of their choice , are prohibited under that section.
S1:
S2: The majority of those were what are called vote dilution cases. That is where there's a minority group population of people. And the district lines are drawn in such a way that that cohesive group of people that lives together in a community is cut up into different districts so that they can't make up a majority of any one district. So that so that's the sort of the vote dilution in district line drawing. But you can also have vote dilution in the choice of having at large elections. Right. So if we had a city council or if a , if a city has a city council where instead of dividing the city up into districts where you can have , you know , a black neighborhood elects a black representative and you know , various other , you know , parts of the city elect representatives of their choice. If instead you have , um , a city where , say , blacks make up 30% of the population , um , but everybody in the city votes for all of the districts , then you might have the white population always getting to elect all of the city council people , because that 30% is just never enough to elect a majority. So there's at large districts and redistricting , you know , the drawing of district lines come up a lot under section two.
S1:
S2: It's not it's not particularly easy to bring a case under section two. Right. You need. You need the you need the facts. You have you have to have the facts on the ground. And a Supreme Court case from 1986 called Thornburgh versus jingles , um , sort of laid out what , what needs to happen. And , and they said that you need to have a racial group that's sufficiently numerous and compact to form a single majority , um , in a , in a district. And then that minority group has to vote cohesively. And the , the , the majority group , the non minority group in the community. Usually we're talking about white people votes as a block. And we'll always vote against the minorities preferred candidate. Um and so you have to kind of prove all of those things in court , um , in order to bring a case under section two. Now , just as a little aside here , the Supreme Court is also considering whether citizens and citizen groups can even bring a case or whether only the Justice Department at the federal in the federal government can bring a case under section two. But it has always been the case that groups like the NAACP and the ACLU , um , and other sort of legal rights groups have been the ones that have helped citizens bring these cases. Hmm.
S1: Hmm. So how could the outcome of this case influence the way maps across the country are drawn in the future.
S2: Well , I mean , there's there's sort of , uh , the kind of political effects that make headlines and then there's a bunch of other effects. So , um , the kind of political effects that would make headlines would be , well , if states didn't have to draw districts to protect African-American and Latino minority groups , um , then maybe they would just redraw their district lines so that there weren't majority minority districts. And those groups , you know , were divided up among other districts in their states. And then and then perhaps there would be significantly less representation , fewer African-Americans. Latinos would be elected to the House of Representatives. Um , and because , you know , African-Americans in particular vote heavily for Democrats , you know , that there are some analyses that say that the Republicans could pick up as many as 19 seats if they were able to get rid of majority , minority and majority Democrat districts , particularly in the South. Um , but , you know , the the bigger effect is , you know , not all of these cases are about congressional districts that these apply to state and local elections as well. And so we could see the dilution , the institution of voting rules that dilute minority votes at the local level , um , denying minority groups representation , not just at the federal level , but at the at local and state levels as well. And , and all the consequences of that for representation. Mhm.
S1: Mhm. Does this impact like um , gosh voter suppression laws and things of that nature.
S2: Yeah , absolutely. You know , some of the cases that have been brought under section two are , uh , you know , voter ID laws or some , you know , some of the , some of the kinds of cases that that might come up under this would be things like voter ID laws and , um , you know , states can make it. There's already ways that they can legally make it difficult for people to vote in ways that particularly impact people of color. And if section two were no longer a restriction on that , then then states could resume their historical creativity with making it difficult for minority groups to participate in the elections. Yeah.
S1: Yeah. You know , the Voting Rights Act has has been largely reduced in the last decade or so by an increasingly conservative Supreme Court.
S2: Right. So they they have made it almost impossible to , um , use affirmative action in university admissions. Um , they are , you know , at least on the basis of race. And so they , they in a in a bunch of their cases , they've said the , the practices of the past , racially discriminatory practices of the past , uh , are no longer a problem. And , uh , the federal government shouldn't be interfering with states and that , uh , ability to write election laws and that , um , that election rules and other kinds of rules , um , should not take race. They shouldn't be allowed to consider race at all. I mean , that's the argument of the plaintiffs in the Louisiana versus Calais case that that we're that is under consideration right now. Their argument is by considering race , um , they have violated the rights of , of non-African Americans , Louisiana. And if they adopt that attitude , that goes right at the heart of of what the Voting Rights Act was supposed to do.
S1:
S2: We'll have primaries. Candidates will have been running already and have been decided. And and states will be underway with their , you know , election preparations for the fall midterms. And so if the Supreme Court follows its usual timetable , then it probably won't affect the midterms. But if the Supreme Court issues this decision quickly and we hear in December or early January , well , then states would have time to say , oh , well , if we don't have to follow section two , then we're going to redistrict again. Um , and then , you know , potentially , you know , like I said , some folks suggest that Republicans could get rid of all the majority black districts , and then those Democrats wouldn't be in those districts. And then , um , you know , they could potentially pick up as many as 19 seats. I think that's probably a little. I don't know that the politics will work out that way. You know , states will actually , you know , if section two goes away , state legislatures will be faced with , you know , looking at their own constituents and saying , well , we we have these we have this one congressional district or these four congressional districts or whatever , um , that are majority minority that have elected people of color to Congress. And we're just going to get rid of those now. Um , so they first of all , they would have to do that publicly. Um , and , you know , face any consequences for that. But then second , what they wind up doing is they take minority voters who would then be presumably not very happy. Um , and they go put them in a bunch of districts that are that might otherwise elect Republicans , but they might , you know , in a big wave election as as many midterm elections are , maybe they elect Democrats instead , and maybe even people of color so you know , nothings. The future is not written in stone. Just because you draw district lines doesn't always mean that the election is going to come out the way that you want them. The way that the line draws want them to. Um , but those are some of the options for what could happen.
S1: I've been speaking with Casey Dominguez. She's a professor of political science at the University of San Diego. Professor , as always , thank you so very much.
S2: Thank you.
S1: Up next , a UCSD scholarship for black students faced a legal challenge. We'll talk about the outcome and impact of that case. KPBS Midday Edition is back after the break. You're listening to KPBS Midday Edition. I'm Jade Hindman. The Louisiana vehicle case being weighed by the Supreme Court is just one example of how race neutral legal challenges could undermine anti-discrimination laws. In fact , some would argue the legal framework to do just that started here in California with prop 209 back in 1996 , when voters across the state essentially banned affirmative action in public education , employment and contracts. In the immediate aftermath of that , enrollment of black and Latino students dropped by 40% , which was not the race neutral outcome expected despite that data. Earlier this year , a similar legal argument was applied to a University of California. San Diego's scholarship , meant to raise enrollment and graduation rates for black students who only represent 3.4% of UCSD. The right leaning nonprofit Pacific Legal Foundation filed a lawsuit over the Black Alumni Scholarship Fund , saying it was discriminatory and they even used the Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871 to make their argument. Well , now , after a recent settlement , the scholarship has been renamed and is open to all qualified applicants , regardless of race. Joining me to talk about this case and the larger implications of these race neutral lawsuits against policies created to actually correct centuries of racial discrimination is Kiara Bridges. She is a professor of law at UC Berkeley. Professor , welcome to Midday edition.
S3: Thank you so much for having me.
S1: So , so this right leaning organization argued the lack of access to the scholarship is an example of institutionalized racism.
S3: So I am a scholar of race , and I have been writing and thinking about race for 30 some odd years now. And I've never used the term institutionalized racism. I believe that what the plaintiffs are getting at , or is the concept called institutional racism , and what scholars conceptualize institutional racism to be is essentially , you know , the the the term was first used in the 1960s. In fact , a civil rights activist , Stokely Carmichael , alongside a sociologist , Charles Hamilton , came up with the term institutional racism and essentially what they were saying in 1967 when they coined this term was we all recognize individual acts of racism. So when the Ku Klux Klan blows up a church and kills four black girls inside. We say , oh my God , that was a terrible act of Institute of Individual Racism. However , when four black babies die because they lack clothing , because they lack housing , because they lack health care , we can't point to an actor and say , oh , he did it right. She did it. They did it. Instead , we need a concept that can describe how , um , black people , how people of color are nevertheless harmed by these systems that are race based. Um , but there is no sort of individual that we can point to and say , there it is. So institutional racism , as scholars have come to conceptualize , the term refers to race neutral , um , institutional processes that nevertheless reinforce , reconfirm , reinstitute Institute racial hierarchy. And so your question to me was , you know what I imply. The concept of institutional racism to the scholarship that was open only to black students at UC San Diego. And my answer would be no for a couple of reasons one. Institutional racism refers to race neutral processes. And so this this scholarship had race on its face. It was only open to black students or black applicants. And so it's not race neutral in the way that we conceptualize institutional racism within the Academy. And second , I wouldn't think of it as institutional racism because it does not. The scholarship has never worked to reaffirm racial hierarchy and by racial hierarchy. I want to be precise , I'm referring to a system in which white people as a group are doing much better than non-white people as a group. And by better , I mean , in terms of lifespan , I mean , in terms of income , in terms of wealth , in terms of the ability to avoid the criminal legal system , whether that's policing or prisons. I mean , the ability to survive childbirth , which is what I work on. I work on maternal mortality and morbidity. And , you know , black folks are dying at 3 to 4 times the rate as white folks. And so when I'm talking about racial hierarchy , I'm talking about a system in which non-white people are not doing as well as white folks. And so to the extent that this this scholarship was designed to , um , interrupt those processes that make that true , I would not describe it as participating in institutional racism. Instead , I would I would describe it as challenging institutional racism. And so to the extent that the plaintiffs want to describe the scholarship as institutional racism , it's like we're we're in the Upside Down where it's topsy turvy. But it's also consistent with this colorblind logic , which ignores racial hierarchy and instead says that we just need to ignore race and act like race doesn't matter in our present sociopolitical circumstances.
S1: I just want to go back to institutional racism , because , I mean , either that is like a term that has been defined and understood or it hasn't. Right. So. So how is it ? Um , I guess I'm wondering , you know , in your eyes , how is it then , that it could be misapplied ? Um , in a case like this ? Okay.
S3: So , I mean , don't get me started. So , I mean , as a race scholar , you know , the past five years of my life , um , has been witnessing , um , the co-optation of our terms and the perversion of our terms. Um , you know , I have I wrote a book. My third book was called Critical Race Theory a primer. I published this book in 2018 , well before conservative actors discovered the term critical race theory. But beginning in 2020 , I think many of the listeners will remember how it was just , you know , everybody was talking about critical race theory. And as a critical race theory scholar , as a person who wrote a book about the subject , it was incredibly frustrating for me to see this term bandied about , um , in a way that was disconnected from the scholarship that produced it , in the way that was disconnected from the claims that the theory makes. I want to be really clear when I say the critical race theory that everybody started talking about in 2020 had nothing to do , had only a passing resemblance right , to this sophisticated , nuanced , complex theory that legal scholars had been developing for 40 years. And so when I , you know , I hear about a lawsuit brought by a plaintiff that says that when a non-black person doesn't have access to a scholarship , it is institutionalized racism. Um , I feel like it's deja vu all over again. First of all , I feel like you took the term and you misused it like nobody was talking about institutionalized racism. We were talking about institutional racism. Um , but secondly , that's not how that's not what we understood the term to be. Again , these were race neutral processes that nevertheless work to reconstitute racial hierarchy. Um , and so to say that institutionalized racism exists when a non-black person doesn't have access to a scholarship is to miss the whole point of racial hierarchy , right ? It's to miss the whole point of white supremacy. And by white supremacy , I mean a system in which white people are dominant , in which they're doing better than other , um , racial groups. And , um , so that so that's how this case can come out in the way that it has come out is we have the co-optation of the term and the misuse of the term. Um , this is institutionalized racism. I'm taking it , you know , the plaintiffs , to understand it to be sort of any mechanism or any mode or any example of an institution just considering race would be institutionalized racism. And again , that's not what race scholars have been talking about for close to 60 years. When we use the term institutional racism.
S1: Do you think the the misunderstanding of this term is intentional ? Absolutely.
S3: Yes.
S1: Yes. Yes.
S3: Yes. Okay. No. So so the reason why I answered your question so quickly , um , like , right once you posed it is that I don't I , I , I'm , I'm of the school. I don't believe that conservative actors are stupid. I don't think they're ignorant. I don't think that they're not reading. I think that they have read as much as I have read. I think they have read my book. I think they know what institutional racism. I think they know what structural racism is. I think they know what race scholars mean when we say white privilege or racial privilege. Right ? I think they know all of those things. Um , and so one of two things. One , I could be wrong and they don't know what institutional racism is. They don't know what structural racism is. And so they're just going to misuse the term out of ignorance. But more likely , I believe they understand how these terms have been used again for well over half a century. And they are co-opting the term. They're reformulating the term in order to make it mean things that it hasn't meant , but it can accomplish political ends. And the political end that they're using this term to accomplish. Is colorblindness in a society in which race and color matter very much.
S1: So how do the questions at the heart of.
S4: Of this case.
S1: Um , mere the attacks were seeing toward anti-racism. Initiatives.
S4: Initiatives.
S1: And diversity , equity and inclusion programs nationwide.
S3: This case is is really just an example of of the broader efforts , you know , in society to make institutions and make individuals ignore the fact that race matters. Um , and my understanding , um , the attack on diversity , equity , inclusion , dei these efforts. Right. So , I mean , we have to think about like , what exactly is dei. Um , and I have understood dei and it's also funny because I've also been a person , a scholar who has been critical of institutions , dei efforts. Um , but nevertheless , dei have been you know , it is a multifaceted , just just the umbrella term that describes a whole range of programs , policies , initiatives , what have you that seek to make institutions less exclusionary in terms of race , in terms of sex , in terms of gender identity , in terms of ability , in terms of sexuality ? Um , in terms of of nationality. Right. It's just so of throwing up a , you know , a rainbow flag during Pride Month might be Dei , as well as holding a session on implicit bias that might be Dei. And so what I understand the attack on Dei to be , um , is an effort to make institutions ignore all of these , um , uh , axes of power. And institutions are supposed to ignore that race matters and that sex matters and that gender identity matter and so on and so forth. And so this , this attack on this , you know , scholarship at UC San Diego is just a piece with that. So post this lawsuit , UC San Diego has to pretend it has to ignore the fact that black students are underrepresented in the institution. It has to ignore the fact that black students encounter barriers to accessing the institution , to financing the education , to matriculating from the institution and going on to , you know , graduate school or , you know , beginning a career. So UC San Diego now has to pretend that these race based barriers don't exist. And now open the scholarship up to everyone as if everyone is facing the same barriers. And that's just I mean , one , it doesn't pass my smell test , but to the statistics , just don't bear it out. We have a host of data that show that , um , individuals are encountering barriers , race based barriers , gender based barriers , so on and so forth , and that works out to produce the numbers that I sort of talked about earlier in our conversation about death in lifespan and maternal mortality and morbidity and income and wealth and so on.
S1: I've been speaking with Kiara Bridges. She is a professor of law at UC Berkeley. Professor , again , thank you so much for your insight.
S3: Thank you for having me.
S1: Stick with us. You won't want to miss a conversation with San Diego civil rights icon Harold Brown. KPBS Midday Edition is back after the break. Welcome back to KPBS midday Edition. I'm Jade Hindman. On today's show , we've been talking about the logic of colorblindness as a legal strategy from the Supreme Court's pending decision on section two of the Voting Rights Act to a lawsuit over a San Diego scholarship for black students in a country with a history that's anything but colorblind , civil rights gains have been hard fought and hard earned. Lifelong activist doctor Harold Hal Brown has been doing the work for decades here in San Diego. He was the first black administrator at San Diego State University , where he also helped establish the Afro-American studies program. Hal joins us now to share his personal perspective. Hal , welcome back to Mid-Day edition. Thank you. So glad to have you here in studio. Uh , on the show today. Um , as I mentioned , we've been talking about how this Supreme Court has really gutted the Voting Rights Act. Take me back to the 60s and tell me about why the Voting Rights Act was so monumental.
S5: Well , we have to go back. I always take people back to the beginning , because the only way we know where we are today is to know where we started and where we came from. So I like to take people back to the early days of post slavery , when the the many. Laws and actions were taken by the country to eliminate or prevent Uh , black people from being , uh , not only having to vote , but being involved in all of the , uh , accommodations of travel barred from hotels and , and conveniences throughout the country. And I'd like to take people back to that time when all of those things existed. And I think about the words that that kind of made it popular when our former vice president said , we ain't , we ain't going back. What she meant was , is that there's a whole history of what what issues were there for us as black people to overcome everything in accommodations and restaurants and In hotels. We were not allowed in schools , colleges. We were not allowed in any of these places. So we referred to as some of them as the old days. We're not going back to those old days , and we only know where we really need to go by looking at where we came from in our in our fight to be treated as , uh , as normal American citizens.
S1:
S5: Uh , we organized a few of us organized an organization called the Afro-American Association. What we did was we tried to educate our younger people about the history of black people. And after that , I joined with a few others to , uh , to , to form an organization that was a national organization called the Congress of Racial Equality. I was asked and voted to be their chairman. And what we did in San Diego was phenomenal. Uh , we addressed the problems of racial discrimination , racial segregation. And we had we attacked the problem at the stores. We we demonstrated , uh , by Bible by walking around and picket lines against things like San Diego , a gas and electric company , Bank of America. Other banks , those companies did not hire black people. I want to say that again. All of those companies in San Diego did not hire black people. And of course , they didn't hire other non-whites either. So we demonstrated we set in , we we we marched , we picketed. We sent our voices throughout the city of San Diego that , uh , we're going to continue to fight. And we we we were spirited. Which people don't talk about much. They see the marches and send sit ins and things. But we were motivated by song , not only by words of speeches that that we made , but we were really held together by song. You know , everybody understands and has heard we shall overcome. Which is which is beautiful. But we had other songs as well , and we had songs like , uh , we said , ain't nobody gonna turn us around when we're going to keep on walking , keep on talking , walking down Freedom Lane , you know , we had those kinds of things , which was so motivational. And it really kept us going through their hardships that we suffered from the people who were opposed to what we were doing. But we ended up , you know , ended up in 2025 here from where we came from , where even now , where we're enjoying the opportunities that we , uh , never had and until until we fought for them. And here we are today enjoying , uh , not all of the opportunities that should be there , but many of the opportunities that we did not have back during those years , uh , we now have them. Mhm.
S1: Indeed we do , because we overcame so much came.
S5: So much.
S1: We did. Um , when you look back then and you look at where things are today , um , you see , there are some attacks , some erosion of the Civil Rights Act and the things that we that that people fought so hard for , like yourself.
S5: Um , so I think history is very important not only for many blacks who have not participated in the historical development of blacks in America , but also for our white friends and our and and people of other ethnic groups to understand where what happened back in those days and why we continue today to present the obstacles that are still here for blacks and minorities. You know , I can I can I , I have an interesting thing that I , for me that I would like to do in addition to I wrote , I wrote a book that was published here at San Diego State University because I wanted to share what you're asking. Now , I wanted to share with , uh , uh , the sit ins , the people of San Diego. I wanted to share What happened ? What was happening back then. And that made black people form organizations to fight during the civil rights movement. What made me devote my life from the time that I graduated from San Diego State in 1959 , to all the rest of the years of my life that I'm enjoying now. What made me do that ? Well , I tell people , you know , my ancestors made me do it. I look back. I look back at them and I said , this is what they went through. All of the trials and tribulations , which are minor words , all the things that they went through , all of the lynchings , the killings , uh , uh , The the pro liberty of all accommodations , from everything from buses and trains to hotels and stores , restaurants. I mean , it was closed when I came to San Diego from York , Pennsylvania , where I grew up , uh , driving out here with , uh , three other people. I mean , we had to could not stop anywhere to have a bite to eat. We had to pack some stuff before we left home. We came out here on the way , and we had to stop and beg to use the restroom at some , uh , uh , gas stations. And we had to try to get at stopped at some restaurant that we would pass , or one of the gas stations that had a restaurant attached to it. We would go in there and try to get a little food , and when we would order the food , of course we couldn't eat there. We had to take it into the back and and eat outside the restaurant. I mean , these were things that I could go on and on and on about these things. And I answer the question all the time , how ? Why don't you stop ? You've done enough now. You had to just just sit back and rest and relax. And I would tell them , I can't do that. I'm still fighting for all of the people who came before me. I came from humble beginnings. You know , I'm fighting for my mother , my family , my friends. If they can't fight , I can't fight , and I'm going to continue to do that until the day I die. And I think many more of us should be doing it to make sure that what Kamala Harris was saying is we are not going back , but we're not going back because we're going to fight and we're going to do the kinds of things that we need to do to prevent our going back , and we have to do it ourselves. And I would like to , to refer people to , to do some real reading. Yeah. And , uh , about what happened in the past.
S1: It's so important to know the history. Yeah. Um , you've spent you spend so much time organizing. What does the fight look like today ? Where do people pick that baton up and carry it forward.
S5: You know , sometimes I don't want to be cynical , but I don't know if they even know anything about a baton. They haven't heard it. Baton. They haven't. They haven't been told. Other than maybe me and a and a few others. They haven't been told of what responsibilities they have. Because if they don't understand , they're going to be right back where we were , right after the right after the the plantations let us loose. And if we don't understand and I don't see people. I there are some few organizations around San Diego , but I don't see them really being active in educating our young people and getting them out. Make sure that all of us vote. If we had Voted. Black people had voted in the United States the way they should have voted back when Donald Trump ran for the first time. If they would have voted , he would not have won. But we did not vote in New York and Chicago and Cleveland and Los Angeles. Those numbers I have is that if they had voted in a decent numbers , that. He would have been prevented from being in the in the presidency. And maybe just just add one little thing to , to this. Is that one of the things that that I find most , most interesting and. I don't know quite how to address it. But in my book I , I wrote a little bit about it. My book titled The Color Monster , which was published right here in San Diego. And what I try to say in The Color of Monster is that here is where we came from in the San Diego , and we need to be careful of this one very important thing that our past did not , uh , psychologically hurt us and make us what we are today.
S1: All right , Hal Brown , thank you so much for that. And thank you for joining us. Thank you all for listening. Join us again tomorrow.
