It was hardly surprising that Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, an affirmative action pick for the Supreme Court, dissented in Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. University of North Carolina, one of the two cases involving affirmative action the Supreme Court ruled on last month.
Justice Clarence Thomas eviscerated Jackson in his concurring opinion, in truly epic fashion. “Accordingly, JUSTICE JACKSON’s race-infused world view falls flat at each step. Individuals are the sum of their unique experiences, challenges, and accomplishments,” Thomas wrote. “What matters is not the barriers they face, but how they choose to confront them. And their race is not to blame for everything—good or bad—that happens in their lives. A contrary, myopic world view based on individuals’ skin color to the total exclusion of their personal choices is nothing short of racial determinism.”
The left, of course just gushed over her dissent. “Chief Justice Roberts’ majority opinion does violence to justice and fairness in America,” Rep. Nancy Pelosi tweeted. “In contrast, Justice Jackson’s powerful dissent is inspiring to us, as we continue to fight to widen the path to success for all Americans.”
Pelosi obviously wasn’t the only one who heaped praise upon Jackson’s dissent, but all the Justice’s admirers have egg on their faces now. It turns out that Jackson’s statement contains a huge whopper that effectively blows up her entire argument.
In her dissent, Jackson argued that there are many benefits of diversity in education, namely that it “saves lives.” She wrote, “For high-risk Black newborns, having a Black physician more than doubles the likelihood that the baby will live.”
A more ridiculous claim couldn’t be made. Ted Frank, a senior attorney with the Hamilton Lincoln Law Institute, explains in the Wall Street Journal just how absurd Jackson’s accusation is. “A moment’s thought should be enough to realize that this claim is wildly implausible. Imagine if 40% of black newborns died—thousands of dead infants every week,” he wrote. “But even so, that’s a 60% survival rate, which is mathematically impossible to double. And the actual survival rate is over 99%.”
Related: Winsome Sears Nukes Ketanji Brown Jackson’s Dissent: ‘Chosen Because She’s Black’
Frank asks, “How could Justice Jackson make such an innumerate mistake?” It turns out that the claim is backed up by a footnote citing an amicus brief filed by the Association of American Medical Colleges, which makes the claim echoed by Jackson. “It, in turn, refers to a 2020 study whose lead author is Brad Greenwood, a professor at the George Mason University School of Business,” Frank explains.
But there’s just one problem: the study makes no such claim.
“It examines mortality rates in Florida newborns between 1992 and 2015 and shows a 0.13% to 0.2% improvement in survival rates for black newborns with black pediatricians (though no statistically significant improvement for black obstetricians),” Frank explains. “The AAMC brief either misunderstood the paper or invented the statistic.”
“So, we have a Supreme Court justice parroting a mathematically absurd claim coming from an interested party’s mischaracterization of a flawed study,” Frank argues. “Her opinion then urges ‘all of us’ to ‘do what evidence and experts tell us is required to level the playing field and march forward together.’ Instead, we should watch where we’re going.”
This is the kind of thing that happens when you pick an activist to sit on the Supreme Court based entirely on her race and gender. A grossly absurd claim was revealed to be false, and her entire argument blew up in her face.
