>> WHEN -- ALL IN STARTS RIGHT NOW. ♪ ♪ ♪ >> GOOD EVENING FROM NEW YORK. I'M CHRIS HAYES. TODAY IN A LANDMARK RULING THAT OVERTURNS DECADES OF PRECEDENTS, SWEEPING ASIDE GENERATIONS OF ARGUMENTS ABOUT RACIAL JUSTICE AND EQUALITY, THE SUPREME COURT IN A 6 TO 3 DECISION, SIX CONSERVATIVES TO THREE LIBERALS, EFFECTIVELY GOT RID OF THE USE OF RACE IN COLLEGE ADMISSIONS AT ALL, EVEN FOR THE PURPOSES OF INCREASING DIVERSITY. IN THE WAKE OF THE DECISIONS, MANY COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES IMMEDIATELY SENT LETTERS TO STUDENTS AND ALUMNI OUTLINING HOW THEY ARE GOING TO OPERATE GOING FORWARD. ONE SUCH SCHOOL WAS THE COLLEGE OF THE HOLY CROSS IN MASSACHUSETTS, WHICH IS NOTABLE, BECAUSE THAT IS THE ALMA MATER OF JUSTICE CLARENCE THOMAS, WHOSE DECADES LONG PROJECT TO DESTROY AFFIRMATIVE ACTION CULMINATED IN A VICTORY TODAY. THOMAS DID NOT WRITE THE COURTS MAJORITY OPINION, THAT WAS WRITTEN BY JUSTICE ROBERTS. HE DID WRITE A FIERY 58-PAGE, DENOUNCING RACE AS A FACTOR IN ADMISSIONS, AS POLICIES, AND I QUOTE HIM HERE, FLY IN THE FACE ABOUT OUR COLOR BLIND CONSTITUTION AND OUR NATION'S EQUALITY IDEAL. CLARENCE THOMAS DID NOT ALWAYS THINK THIS WAY. IN THE LATE 1960S, WHEN HE WAS AT HOLY CROSS, HE WAS ONE OF FEW DOZEN BLACK STUDENTS AT THAT COLLEGE. AS JOE ANDERSON WRITES FOR SLATE, QUOTE, HE GOT ADMITTED THANKS TO HIS GOOD GRADES AND A RECOMMENDATION FROM A NON-, AND MAYBE IN PART BECAUSE THE SCHOOL WAS ACTIVELY LOOKING FOR BLACK STUDENTS. IT WAS IN THE 1960S, IT WAS IN THE WAKE OF THE WATCH RIGHT. THE SCHOOL HADN'T HAD MANY BLACK STUDENTS. AND THEY WERE LOOKING FOR SOME. AND ONCE HE GOT TO HOLY CROSS, THOMAS POLITICS THERE WERE DOWNRIGHT RADICAL. >> HE DEFINITELY WAS INSPIRED BY THE BLACK PANTHERS. HE DRESSED LIKE THEM. HE TALKED LIKE THEM. HE HAD A BERET. HE HAD ARMY FATIGUES AND HE HAD ARMY BOOTS. >> HE WAS AFRO. HE WAS OUT THERE WITH EVERYONE ELSE. >> AFTER COMPLETING HIS UNDERGRADUATE DEGREE, THOMAS WAS ACCEPTED IN A NUMBER OF PRESTIGIOUS LAW SCHOOLS INCLUDING HARVARD. BUT HE CHOSE TO ATTEND YALE LAW BECAUSE HE BELIEVED THE CAMPUS LIBERAL POLITICS IS ALIGNED WITH HIS OWN. WELL, DISILLUSION WITH HIS OWN STATUS AT THAT ELITE UNIVERSITY. AS THE TIMES REPORTED BACK IN 1991, THOMAS WAS ACCEPTED TO YALE AS PART OF THE SCHOOL'S EXPLICIT AFFIRMATIVE ACTION PLAN TO ADMIT MORE STUDENTS OF COLOR. WHEN HE RESENTED ANY SUGGESTION, HE RECEIVED ANY SPECIAL CONSIDERATION BECAUSE OF HIS RACE. ONCE HE GRADUATED FROM YALE LAW, THOMAS BLAMED HIS INITIAL ABILITY TO FIND WORK IN THE LEGAL PROFESSION, NOT ON THE FACT THAT MANY LEGAL INSTITUTIONS, LAW FIRMS IN THE 1970S WHO WERE STILL READOUTS OF RACISM, AND WHITE SUPREMACY, AND HAD RACIST HIRING PRACTICES, AND DID NOT WANT TO HIRE HIM. BUT RATHER ON THE BELIEF THAT HIS DEGREE HAD BEEN TAKEN BY THE APPLICATION OF AFFIRMATIVE ACTION. >> YALE LAW DEGREE, AND HE HAD A TENCENT STAMPED STUCK TO IT, LIKE A TEN CENT PRICE TAG STUCK TO IT. HE WAS LIKE, THIS IS WHAT IT'S WORTH, TEN CENTS, NO MORE. >> YOU CAME TO BLAME AFFIRMATIVE ACTION FOR THE REJECTION HE FELT. >> NOW, I KNOW WHAT A LAW DEGREE FROM YALE WAS WORTH, RACIAL PREFERENCE. I WAS HUMILIATED. >> EVENTUALLY, THOMAS FOUND A JOB IN THE OFFICE OF THE CONSERVATIVE MISSOURI ATTORNEY GENERAL JOHN DANFORTH, WHO RECENTLY TOLD THE SLOGAN PODCAST THAT HE HIRED THOMAS IN PART BECAUSE OF HIS RACE. >> MY AMBITION WAS THAT THE A.G.'S OFFICE WAS TO BE THE BEST LAW OFFICE IN THE STATE. NOW, DID I ALSO THINK THAT IT WAS IMPORTANT TO HAVE A DIVERSE OFFICE? YES, I DID. AND I THINK THAT IT WAS WONDERFUL TO HIRE CLARENCE THOMAS FOR THAT REASON. HE HAS, BUT THE MOST IMPORTANT REASON WAS I HAD TO GET THE JOB DONE. >> FROM THERE, THOMAS STARDOM CONTINUE TO RISE AND CONSERVATIVE ILLEGAL SERVERS, ACCORDING TO HIS EX GIRLFRIEND, ARISE THAT WAS PREDICATED IN PART ON AFFIRMATIVE ACTION. >> IN 1982, THE WHITE HOUSE OFFERED DON IS A BIG PROMOTION THE CHANCE TO RUN HIS OWN FEDERAL AGENCY. THE TROUBLE WAS THAT AGENCY WAS ABOUT EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION. THIS WAS EXACTLY THE KIND OF ROLE GLANCED ALMOST DIDN'T WANT, A POSITION FOCUSED ON RACE AND DISCRIMINATION FOCUS >> HE DIDN'T WANT TO BE . HE WAS RESENTFUL THAT HE HAD NOT BEEN OFFERED SOMETHING THAT A WHITE PERSON WOULD WANT. >> THOMAS WAS IN A BIND. HE WANTED TO KEEP RISING IN THE ADMINISTRATION, BUT HE DIDN'T WANT TO RISE THIS WAY. >> HE DIDN'T WANT ANYONE TO THINK THAT HE HAD GOTTEN A JOB BECAUSE HE WAS BLACK. OF COURSE -- EVERY JOB HE HAD EVER GOTTEN WAS BECAUSE IT WAS BLACK. >> NOW, I WANT TO BE ABSOLUTELY CLEAR HERE. NO ONE IS SAYING THAT GLANCED ON THIS WAS UNQUALIFIED FOR ANY OF THOSE JOBS, EVEN HIS CRITICS, HIS HARSHEST CRITICS OF HIS JURISPRUDENCE WILL CONCEDE, CAN CAN SEE THAT HE IS UNDOUBTEDLY ONE OF THE MOST, IF NOT THE MOST IMPORTANT INFLUENTIAL LEGAL MINDS OF HIS GENERATION. BUT THAT MISTAKEN BELIEF THAT RACE BASED CONSIDERATION, DIVERSITY BASED CONSIDERATION, AND SOME ELUSIVE CONCEPT OF TRUE MERIT, ABSTRACTED FROM THAT, MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE, THE FOUNDATION ON WHICH TODAY'S SUPREME COURT DECISION WAS BILL. IT WAS THAT THAT HELPED SECURE THOMAS LEGAL LEGACY. HE WAS EVENTUALLY APPOINTED TO THE D.C. COURT OF APPEALS BY PRESIDENT GEORGE H. W. BUSH. JUST TWO YEARS LATER, BUSH NOMINATED HIM TO THE SUPREME COURT, TO REPLACE THAT RETIRING JUSTICE THURGOOD MARSHALL, AT THAT POINT, THE ONLY BLACK PERSON TO EVER SIT ON THE NATION'S HIGHEST COURTS. IF >> THE PRESIDENT IS THE BEST QUALIFIED PERSON FOR THE JOB, AND DENIED THAT HE SELECTED THOMAS TO REPLACE THE RETIRING THURGOOD MARSHALL BECAUSE HE'S BLACK. >> THE FACT THAT HE IS A MINORITY, SO MUCH BETTER. THAT'S NOT A FACTOR, AND I WOULD STRONGLY RESENT ANY CHARGE THAT MIGHT BE FORTHCOMING ON QUOTAS WHEN IT RELATES TO APPOINTING THE BEST MEN IN THE COURT. >> AGAIN, SAME THING HERE THOMAS WAS BOTH QUALIFIED FOR THE POSITION ON THE COURT AS WAS PROBABLY SEVERAL DOZEN FOLKS, MAYBE MORE. HE WAS ALSO NOMINATED DUE TO THE OBVIOUS POLITICAL MOTIVATIONS IN REPLACING THE FIRST BLACK JUSTICE, THURGOOD MARSHALL. DURING HIS CONFIRMATION HEARINGS, THOMAS WAS ASKED ABOUT HIS OWN VOCAL OPPOSITION TO AFFIRMATIVE ACTION. >> THE QUESTION IS DIRECTLY IN ENTRY TO YALE, WERE YOU PART OF AFFIRMATIVE ACTION QUOTA? WERE YOU PART OF A RACIAL QUOTA IN TERMS OF ENTERING THAT LAW SCHOOL? >> SENATOR, I I'M NOT DOING MY ADULT LIFE, BEEN PART OF ANY QUOTA. THE EFFORT ON THE PART OF YALE DURING MY YEARS THERE WAS TO REACH OUT AND OPEN ITS DOORS TO MINORITIES WHO FELT WERE QUALIFIED. AND I TOOK THEM AT THEIR WORD ON THAT. AND I HAVE ADVOCATED THAT VERY KIND OF AFFIRMATIVE ACTION. >> JUST THINK ABOUT THAT MOMENT FOR A SECOND, NOW HAVING SEEN SOME OF THIS MAN'S TRAJECTORY TO POWER. THEY THINK HE HATES MORE THAN ANYTHING, THAT WOUNDS HIS PRIDE, IS TO BE VIEWED AS BEING LESS THAN OR NOT QUALIFIED, AS BEING IN AFFIRMATIVE ACTION CASE. AND YET, AT EVERY KEY JUNCTURE IN HIS LIFE, HE'S ASKED ABOUT IT OVER AND OVER AGAIN. AND FOR THOMAS AND THE CONSERVATIVE MAJORITY IN THE COURT, IT ALL BOILS DOWN TO THIS NEBULOUS CONCEPT OF MERIT, OF QUALIFIED, WHO IS DESERVING OF OPPORTUNITIES AND WHO IS NOT. BUT I THINK THAT MISSES A POINT. IT IS REALLY A QUESTION ABOUT WHAT KINDS OF INSTITUTIONS, AND WHAT KIND OF SOCIETY WE WANT TO HAVE. DO WE WANT A SOCIETY WHERE PEOPLE LIKE CLARENCE THOMAS, FROM THE SMALL TOWN IN GEORGIA, JUST SEVERAL GENERATIONS REMOVED FROM SLAVERY AND JIM CROW, SELECTED, NURTURED, AND ENCOURAGED, OR ONCE IN WHICH THEY DON'T GO TO HOLY CROSS, THEY DON'T GO TO A, THEY DON'T END UP IN COURTS. INSTEAD, THOSE SCHOOLS AND INSTITUTIONS PICK MORE SAILING TEAM MEMBERS AND LEGACIES. ONE OF THE THINGS WE SAW TODAY, AND WE SAW A LOT, IT BRILLIANT MAN WHO WAS ABLE TO OVERCOME CENTURIES OF PREJUDICE, INSTITUTIONALIZED PREJUDICE, TO COME FROM THE MOST UNLIKELY OF BACKGROUNDS
