Barbara Grutter fancied a career change. 43 years old, in the owner of a successful health

care business, in the mid-90s she applied to the University of Michigan School of Law

with stellar grades. She was rejected. The law school waited applications to favour minority

students in order to ensure a diverse class, affirmative action and practice. Grutter felt

cheated. 30 years ago, as a young woman, I entered a sexist work environment. She later

wrote, only to find myself 25 years later, discriminated against on yet another basis.

This time, race. She sued the University, and in 2003 her case Grutter V. Bollinger made

it to the Supreme Court. In a five-four decision, the justice

is rejected her petition, finding that in a majority opinion written by Justice Sandra

Day O'Connor, the law school's race-conscious admissions programme does not unduly harm

non-minority applicants. Elsewhere in that opinion, Justice O'Connor said she expected

that 25 years from now, the use of racial preferences will no longer be necessary. Six years ahead

of her deadline, affirmative action in college admissions is on the verge of being banned.

Would this harm or help the fight for equality?

I'm John Prado. This is checks and balance from the economist.

Each week, we take one big theme, shaping American politics, and explore it in depth.

Today, does America still need affirmative action?

The Supreme Court has said it will hear two cases challenging race-conscious admissions

programmes. Last time it did, in 2016, the petition failed, but the current court's conservative

supermajority is likely to strike down affirmative action. What difference would a ban

on race-conscious admissions make to higher education in America?

With me to make sense of this thorny question, our Charlotte Howard, the economist's New

...