The Court’s Willful Ignorance And Our Racial Caste System

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]

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]

Brando Simeo Starkey, welcome to Water Day.

Hey, thanks for having me.

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?

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.

You refer to the post Civil War amendments to the Constitution, the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments as the trinity. What did they do and what do you think we are getting wrong about them?

So I call the, as you said, the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments the Trinity. We kind of think of them as individual planks or individual amendments when reality, I think we should think of them holistically and they have the power to protect freedom from caste. And that's what I think we get wrong. We typically think of them as anti discriminatory amendments and I think a better framework to discuss them and envision them as anti caste amendments.

We're gonna get to the difference between anti discrimination and anti caste. But in your book, you talk a lot about the term ignorance and you apply the term to the Supreme Court when it comes to civil rights cases. I think most people think that Supreme Court justices of almost any ilk are pretty learned people. So what do you mean when you talk about ignorance in the court?

The Supreme Court does use ignorance. And it is kind of a weird thing to discuss in terms of having these really intelligent people use ignorance. But they often do use ignorance. In one case from the 1890s, a black man was sentenced to death by an all white jury in Mississippi. And Mississippi was obviously discriminating against black people. They made them non voters. They eliminated black people from politics in the state. And one of the offshoots of that is that black people couldn't serve on juries because they couldn't register to vote. And a black attorney by the name of Cornelius Jonas Jones, he brought a case to the Supreme Court in 1898. He had proof that Mississippi was eliminating black people from juries. And the Supreme Court just pretended as though what he proved wasn't proven. And that's just one example of the many examples where the Supreme Court has used ignorance to further ensconce the racial caste system.

It's not just ignorance of the law, it's ignorance of the context. It's looking at what was happening in 1890s Mississippi and saying like, we don't see it and we don't know anything about that and that's not our problem.

Right. They understood at this time that black people were being eliminated from politics, eliminated from civil society. Everyone knew this. But in order to help preserve the racial caste system, the Supreme Court just pretended these facts away, Pretended as though they didn't know what was going on when they clearly did know what was going on.

I thought it was really interesting that you point to that case and two other cases from 1896 and 1898. And it's always interesting to me because I think that we talk about the failures of Reconstruction, which is taking place in the 1870s, but the 1890s are, to me, when America's racial understanding is really developed. These three cases, and you've already talked about one of them, were these the moments in which racial ignorance became enshrined in the Supreme Court, in your view?

[Jane Coston]

Hmm.

[Brando Simeo Starkey]

I never really contemplated when this kind of hardened. But yeah, I do believe that in around the 1890s, at the same time as Plessy v. Ferguson is being decided in that case, Justice Brown pretended as though a separate train law was just some law. It didn't really do it just separated the races, when in reality we know that that law was premised on the belief that black people were unfit to occupy white spaces. But the Supreme Court pretended as though they did not know that. That's ignorance. Using the absence of knowledge to further.

The racial caste system you mentioned earlier. And I'm excited to get to this because you talk about wanting to jettison the anti discrimination framework and embrace an anti caste framework. What are the differences between those two? And why is it important to embrace anti caste?

Right. Okay, so anti discrimination just focuses on whether a law or a policy is race conscious. Anti caste laws or anti caste. Viewing of the Constitution focuses on the extent to which a law or policy helps entrench the racial caste system. The best way of explaining this is through a situation that's going on today. Diversity, equity, inclusion. The Trump administration is saying that this is discriminatory. And in certain ways, by taking account of race, diversity, equity and inclusion is discriminatory. It's race conscious. But to most people, or to most people on the left side of the political spectrum, diversity and equity inclusion seems right. And why does it seem right? Why does it seem fair to take account of race to help eliminate racial oppression? And the answer to me is obvious. If one law is doing the work of uprooting the racial caste system and one policy is doing the work of ensconcing the racial caste system, that's really the dividing line that we should be concentrating on. So a lot of times people on the right side of the political spectrum, they would say, by taking account of race, you're denying equal protection to white people. Diversity, equity, and inclusion denies white people equal protection when the truth is that diversity equity and inclusion provides equal protection to minority groups, provides equal protection to oppressed identities.

You finished your book proposal in 2020 during the height of civil unrest and protest following the murders of Ahmaud Arbery, Breonna Taylor, George Floyd. We're five years out from that and a lot has changed. You have the same presidents in office again, but what changed over that time in how you see your work and what it might mean more broadly?

I think that the broader society is probably less receptive to talking about race. I would say that perhaps particularly in mainstream media outlets might not want to discuss race as much anymore. They think of it as a distraction when in 2020, when I sent my book proposal out, it was kind of top of mind. Everyone was talking about race and people were more willing to talk about it. In that sort of scenario, it is easy to get your voice heard. It's harder to get your voice heard now because a lot of people just don't want to talk about it. So this definitely is a more difficult environment to talk about race. But but that doesn't make the mission any less severe.

Brando Semio Starkey thank you so much for joining me.

Thank you for having me.

[Jane Coston]

That was my conversation with Brando Simeo Starkey, author of Their Accomplices Wore how the Supreme Court Chained Black America to the Bottom of a Racial Caste System. We'll get to more of the news in a moment, but if you like the show, make sure to subscribe, leave a five star review on Apple Podcasts, watch us on YouTube and share with your friends. More to come after some ads What.

[Brando Simeo Starkey]

A Day is brought to you by Oneskin.

[Jane Coston]

As the weather warms up, you might.

[Brando Simeo Starkey]

Want to rethink your skincare routine, especially if you're using retinol, which can leave your skin more vulnerable to sun damage. Here's why I'm switching to OneSkin's facial moisturizer OS1Face. This summer, in lab studies, OS1Face boosted collagen production, similar to retinol, but without that sun sensitivity risk. And unlike retinol, which can disrupt your skin barrier, OS one Face strengthens it, helping your skin become even more resilient to the sun, heat, pollution and other types of environmental stressors. The key is One Skin's patented OS1 peptide. It works by targeting the signs of aging at the cellular level, something retinol can't do. In fact, it's the first peptide scientifically proven to reverse skin's biological age. So instead of irritating your skin like other topical skin, you're helping your skin look, feel and act like its younger self. Get stronger, smoother and healthier skin this summer with One Skin, you'll save 15% on your first purchase when you use Code Watt at checkout. I really like how os1 makes my face feel and I like the fact that it doesn't cause some of the same issues as retinol. Oneskin is the world's first skin longevity company. By focusing on the cellular aspects of aging, Oneskin keeps your skin looking and acting younger for longer. For a limited time, you can try OneSkin with 15% off using code WAD at OneSkin co. That's 15% off at OneSkin Co with Code Wad.

[Jane Coston]

After you purchase, they'll ask you where you heard about them.

[Brando Simeo Starkey]

Please support our show and tell them we sent you. Give your skin the scientifically proven gentle care it deserves with Oneskin.

[Unknown]

Summer on the south side of Chicago is heating up.

[Jane Coston]

You planning revenge on tiff?

[Unknown]

This shy is back on Paramount. Plus it's the season of the Women.

[Brando Simeo Starkey]

Women, this is our chance.

[Unknown]

It's time to get to work. But the men aren't giving up without a fight.

Trees are always gonna have a villain.

No one is backing down in the Showtime Original series from Emmy Award winner Lena Waithe. Why do black women always have to save the day?

[Jane Coston]

If we don't do it, who else will?

[Unknown]

The shy new season, now streaming on the Paramount with Showtime plan.

[Jane Coston]

This year.

[Brando Simeo Starkey]

Every day has felt like so many days in one. But on wanaday, we'll bring you the news that matters most in a concise, digestible format.

[Jane Coston]

Because we respect your time and your brain space, we have exclusive interviews and.

[Brando Simeo Starkey]

Original reporting you won't get anywhere else.

[Jane Coston]

Maximize your time. Minimize your doom scrolling head to Qriket.com daily to subscribe to our what a Day podcast and nightly newsletter now and.

[Brando Simeo Starkey]

Get some of your hard earned day back.

[Jane Coston]

Here's what else we're following today.

[Brando Simeo Starkey]

Head of Lines.

[Unknown]

People in the city have a rapid response network. If they see ice, they go out and they protest. And so it's just a recipe for pandemonium that is completely unnecessary. Nothing was happening here. Los Angeles was peaceful before Friday. When we find out when and where the other raids are going to happen, that will determine how the police respond.

[Jane Coston]

A lot has happened in Los Angeles since last Friday when Immigration and Customs Enforcement raided workplaces and protesters resisted. Louisiana Mayor Karen Bass blames the federal raids for ratcheting up the tension. A union leader got arrested for allegedly conspiring to impede an officer. He was Released on bond Monday. Oh, and the National Guard. Yes, the National Guard. President Donald Trump deployed National Guard members Sunday and on Monday continued to deploy armed forces to Los Angeles, all without California Governor Gavin Newsom's consent. So on Monday, Newsom sued over use of the Guard. He hit Twitter asking the Trump administration to, quote, end the illegal takeover of the California National Guard, which has escalated chaos and violence in la. And amidst all that mayhem, Trump's border czar, Tom Homan, warned of possible arrests for anyone obstructing ICE's efforts, including Newsom and Bass. Newsom told MSNBC Homan can try, he said.

[Unknown]

Tough guy. Why doesn't he do that? He knows where to find me. But you know what? Lay your hands off four year old girls that are trying to get educated. Lay your hands off these poor people. They're just trying to get live their lives, man. Trying to live their lives, paying their taxes. Been here 10 years. The fear, the horror, the hell is this guy? Come after me, arrest me, let's just get it over with, tough guy.

[Jane Coston]

Trump later appeared to egg home and on when speaking to reporters, he said, quote, unquote, I'd do it if I were Tom. I think it's great. He added later that Newsom's crime was running for office. Let's admit that this situation is overwhelming for us and we're here. Things are still fluid, but there's a big picture emerging too. Matt Berg at the what a Day newsletter interviewed Nancy Pelosi, the former House speaker, during the January 6 riot. Pelosi wants everyone to know that the President's sending the National Guard to LA for some relatively minor protests. Is the very same one who turned down the opportunity to use the National Guard to protect the national capital during an insurrection. Pelosi said, quote, well, it is overwhelming.

[Unknown]

Because they were going to put a bullet in my F word head and they were going to hang the Vice President of the United States. And this guy is, you know, not sending in the National Guard and then lying about it to the public saying, oh, whatever. They turned it down.

[Jane Coston]

She is not wrong. Hundreds of scientists at the National Institutes of Health issued a public letter Monday condemning the Trump administration's massive cuts to the agency. They called the letter the Bethesda Declaration. After NIH headquarters in Bethesda, Maryland, they addressed it to agency director Dr. J. Bhattacharya. I like to think that this Bethesda Declaration is a reference to Bhattacharya's Great Barrington Declaration. That's the controversial letter he co wrote during the pandemic in which he argued against continuing lives lockdowns anyway. The Bethesda declaration asks Bhattacharya to fight Trump's attacks, writing, quote, we dissent to administration policies that undermine the NIH mission, waste public resources and harm the health of Americans and people across the globe. Most signatories are anonymous, but dozens of NIH workers signed with their names despite fears that they could lose their jobs. Bhattacharya responded to the declaration in a statement Monday, saying that it has some fundamental misconceptions about the policy directions the NIH has taken in recent months. Also on Monday, the Department of Health and Human Services announced that it fired an expert panel of vaccine advisors for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. In an op ed for the Wall Street Journal Monday, Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Said, quote, a clean sweep is needed to re establish public confidence in vaccine science. Public confidence he has spent like decades undermining. But whatever. What happened to RFK Jr saying my opinions about vaccines are irrelevant? Can we go back to that?

[Unknown]

This is a pro family initiative that will help millions of Americans harness the strength of our economy to lift up the next generation. And they'll really be getting a big jump on life, especially if we get a little bit lucky with some of the numbers and the economy is into the future.

[Jane Coston]

President Trump touted Trump accounts at a White house roundtable with CEOs from Uber, Dell, Goldman Sachs and others Monday. The accounts are part of his big, not very beautiful bill and they would provide every American newborn with an investment account.

[Unknown]

Here is how the accounts work for every US citizen born after December 31, 2024. Before January 1, 2029, the federal government will make a one time contribution of $1,000 into a tax deferred account that will track the overall stock market. In other words, it will be pegged to an index that will pick Trump.

[Jane Coston]

Says family, friends, parents, employers and others could collectively chip in $5,000 to each account per year. This is one case where Trump's idea happens to overlap with a Democratic one. You might remember Cory Booker running on the idea of baby bonds back in 2023. Russia launched nearly 500 drones across Ukraine Monday, the largest overnight drone attack since the war started more than three years ago. Ukraine's Air force said it shot down and deflected most of the drones. The Associated Press reports that one person was injured, while the New York Times says a drone blast killed at least one Ukrainian. Russia has ramped up its attacks on Ukraine despite facing pressure from the US to agree to a ceasefire or Peace deal. Crazy timing. This comes the same day Ukraine and Russia began another prisoner swap. The two countries agreed to the exchange during negotiations in Istanbul last week. It's unclear how many prisoners were released Monday, but Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky said in an address that this marked the first stage of the exchange and that more stages will follow. And that's the news. One more thing. Alex Jones is an anti government conspiracy theorist. Except if that government is run by Donald Trump and his best friends and corporate allies. You probably know of Alex Jones. He's the Infowars guy ranting about how frogs are turning gay and claiming that the Sandy hook shootings in 2012 were faked and that the children murdered there were actors, a claim he still owes the families of those children $1.3 billion for. Late last month, the New York Times reported that the company Palantir is getting hundreds of millions of dollars from the federal government to merge together all of the data available on American citizens using a specific Palantir product called Foundry. Widely adopting Foundry, which organizes and analyzes data, paves the way for Mr. Trump to easily merge information from different agencies. The government official said creating detailed portraits of Americans based on government data is not just a pipe dream. Now, understandably, many people are concerned that the government could use this data for surveillance purposes, particularly against perceived enemies of the state. And as currently, the President of the United States thinks arresting the governor of California for the crime of running for governor would be a good idea. And the Vice President of the United States is posting on Twitter about how a menswear blogger should be deported. Yeah, I can see how someone might think that, as New York magazine put it, the government would officially like to obliterate the already inadequate rules for compiling and sharing data about citizens and non citizens, and is seeking the help of a politically loyal firm to carry out its plans. Now, if you know anything about Alex Jones, you know that he is generally very, very worried about the federal government doing nefarious things like combining intelligence on millions of Americans to do, well, something. He's been yelling about One world governments and the New World order for like 30 years. Rolling Stone called him the most paranoid man in America for a reason. But actually, Alex Jones says that this Palantir news is fine.

[Unknown]

The point is, is who else is.

Trump going to go to in Silicon Valley to try to surveil the government.

[Jane Coston]

Deep state and all the stolen money? Who indeed? Yes, the man who said the shooting of a Democratic member of Congress in 2011 was a government plot because, quote, the government employs geometric psychological warfare experts that know exactly how to indirectly manipulate unstable people through the media says that the federal government funding a private company to do work even employees of the company think is wrong is not really worth getting upset about because Deep State something something. Alex Jones is a leading member of what I'm calling the full of shit brigade. You know, the people who yell do not comply during the Biden administration because of alleged governmental overreach but think that Trump trying to deport a Turkish PhD student who co authored an opinion piece for her student newspaper is fine. They were anti government free thinkers who embraced freedom of speech until January 20, 2025, on which date they decided that actually the government is amazing and cool and anyone who speaks out against it should be thrown into a super prison or out of a helicopter. It's not hard to understand. This is what pure, unfettered, 100% Colombian hypocrisy looks like. And at least Steve Bannon had the chutzpah to be straightforward about how this works, especially regarding Palantir when talking to journalist Chuck Todd.

[Unknown]

I think everybody's got to take a step back. Let me tell you about this Palantir stuff. If a Democratic administration had done this, where would your level of outrage be? I think War Room putting together a database.

I think War Room would open every.

Show, every show about it.

[Jane Coston]

Of course. Before we go, There was an outpouring of overwhelmingly peaceful protests in Los Angeles this weekend to respond to ICE kidnapping community members. Donald Trump is gleefully escalating the situation by deploying the National Guard into LA in hopes of seizing more power for ice. It's a blatant abuse of power designed to intimidate families, stoke fear and break the spirit of the community. Our friends at Vote Save America are fighting back and supporting immigration defense groups to get involved. Head to votesaveamerica.com to learn more. Paid for by Vote Save America votesaveamerica.com, not authorized by any candidate or candidates committee. That's all for today. If you like the show, make sure you subscribe, leave a review, avoid eating at the New Jersey Trump National Golf Club and tell your friends to listen. And if you're into reading and not just about how the Trump National Golf Club got a score of 32 out of 100 on its health inspections, one of the lowest ratings earned by any establishment in Somerset County. Like me, what a Day is also a nightly newsletter. Check it out and [e-mail] subscribe I'm Jane Coston and if you love Expired milk you will love the New Jersey Trump National Golf Club. Water Die is a production of Crooked Media. It's recorded and mixed by Desmond Taylor. Our associate producers are Raven Yamamoto and Emily Foer. Our producer is Michelle Aloy. We had production help today from Johanna Case, Joseph Dutra, Greg Walters and Julia Claire. Our senior producer is Erica Morrison and our executive producer is Adrienne Hill. Our theme music is by Colin Gilliard and Kashaka. Our production staff is proudly unionized with the Writers Guild of America. East.

[Brando Simeo Starkey]

Sam.