The Court’s Willful Ignorance And Our Racial Caste System

Tue Jun 10 2025

The Trump Administration has decided that diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts are themselves a form of discrimination. And last week, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that members of majority groups can also experience discrimination. But what if the entire frame of "discrimination" is the wrong one? Brando Simeo Starkey, author of "Their Accomplices Wore Robes: How the Supreme Court Chained Black America to the Bottom of a Racial Caste System" joins us to discuss how the Supreme Court has worked to ensure that Black Americans stay at the bottom of the racial hierarchy. And in headlines: California Governor Gavin Newsom sued the Trump administration over its deployment of the National Guard to Los Angeles, hundreds of NIH scientists issued a public letter condemning Trump's attacks on the agency, and Russia launched nearly 500 drones across Ukraine.

Summary

What A Day Podcast Episode Summary

Title: The Court’s Willful Ignorance And Our Racial Caste System
Host: Jane Coston
Guest: Brando Simeo Starkey
Release Date: June 10, 2025

Introduction

In this thought-provoking episode of What A Day, host Jane Coston delves into the intricate relationship between the U.S. Supreme Court and the perpetuation of the racial caste system. Paying homage to the late Sly Stone, Jane sets the stage for a deep exploration of systemic racism and legal frameworks that sustain racial hierarchies.

Race in 2025: A Changing Landscape

Jane opens the discussion by highlighting the shifting conversations around race in 2025. She observes a noticeable decline in public discourse on race and discrimination compared to the heightened awareness following the tragic murders of George Floyd, Ahmaud Arbery, and Breonna Taylor five years prior.

Jane Coston [00:58]: "Race in 2025 has become a weird thing to do."

She points out that organizations and public figures who previously championed diversity and inclusion now shy away from these topics, a trend that signals a regression in societal progress on racial issues.

Supreme Court's Stance on Discrimination

Central to the episode is the Supreme Court's recent unanimous ruling affirming that members of majority groups can also experience discrimination. Jane discusses a pivotal case where a straight woman claimed she was denied a job due to her sexual orientation.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson [03:04]: "Courts should understand federal discrimination laws shouldn't vary based on whether the plaintiff is a member of a majority group."

This decision underscores the Court's broadened interpretation of discrimination but also raises questions about whether the legal framework adequately addresses systemic racial inequalities.

Brando Simeo Starkey on the Racial Caste System

Brando Simeo Starkey, author of Their Accomplices Wore: How the Supreme Court Chained Black America to the Bottom of a Racial Caste System, joins the conversation to dissect these legal dynamics. Starkey argues that the Supreme Court's approach not only overlooks contextual realities but actively reinforces racial hierarchies through willful ignorance.

Key Insights from Starkey:

Caste Preservation vs. Abolition: Starkey differentiates between those who aim to maintain the racial caste system ("caste preservationists") and those who strive to dismantle it ("caste abolitionists").

Starkey [02:28]: "Caste preservationists want to preserve the racial caste system, confining Black Americans to a subordinated caste from womb to grave."
The Trinity Amendments: He reinterprets the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments collectively as tools against the caste system rather than mere anti-discrimination laws.

Starkey [03:04]: "We should think of them holistically as anti-caste amendments."
Supreme Court's Ignorance: Starkey criticizes the Court for ignoring the socio-political contexts that perpetuate racial oppression, citing historical cases where the Court dismissed evidence of systemic discrimination.

Starkey [04:54]: "The Supreme Court has used ignorance to further ensconce the racial caste system."

Differences Between Anti-Discrimination and Anti-Caste Frameworks

A significant portion of the dialogue centers on Starkey's advocacy for an anti-caste framework over traditional anti-discrimination approaches. He explains that while anti-discrimination focuses on race-consciousness in laws and policies, an anti-caste perspective examines whether these laws entrench or dismantle the racial hierarchy.

Starkey [06:55]: "Diversity, equity, and inclusion provides equal protection to minority groups, providing equal protection to oppressed identities."

Starkey emphasizes that policies like Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives, often criticized as discriminatory, actually work to dismantle the racial caste system by leveling the playing field for marginalized groups.

Evolving Conversations on Race Post-2020

Reflecting on the changes since the book proposal in 2020, Starkey observes a societal reluctance to engage in discussions about race, especially within mainstream media.

Starkey [08:54]: "Mainstream media outlets might not want to discuss race as much anymore. They think of it as a distraction."

Despite the reduced public discourse, Starkey asserts that the mission to combat the racial caste system remains urgent and critical.

Conclusion

The episode concludes with Starkey reinforcing the necessity of reimagining legal frameworks to effectively address and dismantle systemic racism. Jane Coston encapsulates the essence of the discussion, urging listeners to reconsider how legal interpretations can either uphold or challenge entrenched racial hierarchies.

Notable Quotes

Jane Coston [00:58]: "Race in 2025 has become a weird thing to do."
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson [03:04]: "Courts should understand federal discrimination laws shouldn't vary based on whether the plaintiff is a member of a majority group."
Starkey [02:28]: "Caste preservationists want to preserve the racial caste system, confining Black Americans to a subordinated caste from womb to grave."
Starkey [03:04]: "We should think of them holistically as anti-caste amendments."
Starkey [04:54]: "The Supreme Court has used ignorance to further ensconce the racial caste system."
Starkey [06:55]: "Diversity, equity, and inclusion provides equal protection to minority groups, providing equal protection to oppressed identities."
Starkey [08:54]: "Mainstream media outlets might not want to discuss race as much anymore. They think of it as a distraction."

Final Thoughts

This episode of What A Day offers a critical analysis of how legal institutions and frameworks either perpetuate or challenge systemic racism. Through an insightful conversation with Brando Simeo Starkey, listeners gain a deeper understanding of the racial caste system and the importance of reimagining anti-discrimination laws to achieve true racial equity.

Transcript

Jane Coston (0:02)

It's Tuesday, June 10th. I'm Jane Coston, and this is what a Day, the show that is paying tribute to the great Sly Stone, who passed away Monday at the age of 82. To quote Questlove, who directed a recent documentary about the music luminary, he dared to be simple in the most complex ways, using childlike joy, wordless cries, and nursery rhyme cadences to express adult truths. His work looked straight at the brightest and darkest parts of life and demanded we do the same. On today's show, National Institutes of Health researchers rebuke the Trump administration in a public letter and why King conspiracy theorist Alex Jones supports a private company mining your data for the federal government to use. But let's start by talking about race in 2025. That's become a weird thing to do, and you've noticed it, right? How the companies and personalities who were happy to talk about race and discrimination five years ago after the murders of George Floyd Ahmaud Arbery and Breonna Taylor, would suddenly rather do literally almost anything else. Funny how that works. For their part, the Trump administration has decided that diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts, both in government and in the private sector, are themselves a form of discrimination. And last week, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that members of majority groups can also experience discrimination. In a case in which a straight woman argued that she'd been passed over for a job because of her sexual orientation, liberal Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, who wrote the majority opinion, stated that how courts should understand federal discrimination laws shouldn't vary, quote, based on whether or not the plaintiff is a member of a majority group. But what if the entire frame of discrimination is the wrong one? That's the argument Brando Simeo Starkey is making in his new book, Their Accomplices Wore how the Supreme Court Chained Black America to the Bottom of a Racial Caste System, he argues that by embracing both a form of contextual ignorance and a discrimination framework, the Supreme Court has worked to ensure that black Americans stay at the bottom of the racial hierarchy. Here's my conversation with Brando Simeo Starkey.

Brando Simeo Starkey (2:07)

Brando Simeo Starkey, welcome to Water Day.

Brando Simeo Starkey (2:10)

Hey, thanks for having me.

Brando Simeo Starkey (2:12)

In your book, you focus on the conflict after the Civil War between preservations of the racial caste system and caste abolitionists using the law as a background. In your view, what's the difference between those two groups, the caste preservationists and the caste abolitionists?

Brando Simeo Starkey (2:28)

So, yeah, the caste preservationists are those who want to preserve the racial caste system. And the racial caste system is just a racial hierarchy enforced through law, policies and norms that confines the black population to a subordinated caste from womb to grave. And caste abolitionists are those who want to destroy that system.