The Supreme Court’s current six-member majority is making significant decisions that have caused controversy and alarm. One such decision, which occurred last year, involved the overturning of Roe v. Wade, drawing widespread criticism. This term, the Court also put an end to affirmative action, a topic nearly as contentious as abortion.
What Is Affirmative Action?
Affirmative action refers to policies aimed at addressing the underrepresentation of specific minority groups. It aims to create more opportunities for historically marginalized individuals, such as minorities and women who have faced discrimination and oppression. Affirmative action originated in the United States during the 1960s under President Lyndon Johnson and has since been challenged in court as reverse discrimination.
The Decision
The recent Supreme Court ruling specifically dealt with affirmative action policies in colleges. The case involved lawsuits against Harvard and the University of North Carolina, where race was considered as one factor among many in the admissions process. Asian American students, the primary plaintiffs, argued that they were unfairly rejected or disadvantaged due to the school’s affirmative action policies, which appeared to favor Black and Latino applicants. On the other hand, the schools defended their policies as necessary for creating a diverse and inclusive educational environment benefiting all students.
In the majority opinion, Chief Justice John Roberts rejected the schools’ arguments, stating that any consideration of race in admissions is inherently discriminatory and harmful. Roberts argued that to truly eliminate racial discrimination, all forms of it must be eliminated, cautioning against using race as a substitute for other applicant qualities or achievements.
Did the Supreme Court get it right?
Partially. Affirmative action as we know it may have needed to come to an end. In the 1960s, when affirmative action was implemented, it was evident that almost every Black person in the United States faced significant disadvantages. Special measures were necessary to fulfill the goals of the 1964 Civil Rights Act after centuries of slavery and Jim Crow laws. However, times have changed, and we are no longer in the 1960s. It is difficult to argue that a young Latino or Black child from a well to do family, living in an affluent area like Palo Alto is at a greater disadvantage than a white child living in rural West Virginia, where generational poverty persists. There was a point in U.S. history where even the most disadvantaged white person had significantly more opportunity than a very talented Black person and other minorities. No amount of talent or merit could overcome the racial barrier. However, that is not the America we find ourselves in today. While instances of direct racial discrimination still exist in academia, they should be addressed directly on a case-by-case basis, race is no longer the best or only proxy for determining who needs assistance.
The Tone Of The Opinion Is Wrong
However, where the court went wrong was in implying that we live in a post-racial America, which is far from true. The Court may be done with the past but the past is not done with us. While significant progress has been made, certain communities still bear the lasting effects of historical discrimination. History has a long-lasting impact and addressing the consequences of discrimination may require different tools than those used to combat discrimination itself.
For instance, PTSD is a serious mental condition that affects many people who have experienced war. However, PTSD does not mean that the war is still going on. It means that the person needs help to cope with the trauma and heal from it.
Similarly, the educational gaps we see today are not caused by current systemic bias against minorities. They are the result of historical discrimination that has left a legacy of inequality and disadvantage. Affirmative action was a good policy to counteract direct bias, but it is not the best tool to address the complex and deep-rooted problems that affect minority students today. We need more comprehensive and targeted solutions that can close the gaps and ensure equal opportunities for everyone.
Affirmative action needs a makeover. It should shift focus away from race alone and consider other characteristics like socioeconomic status, geographic location, and other indices that serve as stand-ins for race. Justice Thomas agrees with this perspective, arguing that these indices should not be challenged. These alternative measures are likely to be more effective and harder for right-wing critics to misrepresent.
What’s Fair?
An essential consideration is fairness. Is it fair to disadvantage Asian students in the name of achieving diversity? Probably not. It is possible for an Asian or white student from a challenging background to miss out on admission to an Ivy League institution while a more privileged student secures the spot due in large part to their race. In this regard, the aforementioned indices provide a fairer approach. If there are more socioeconomically disadvantaged Black and Latino students, which there are, these groups will still benefit the most from the new criteria.
Ivy League Universities Will Be Most Impacted
I strongly believe that public junior colleges, trade schools, and four-year universities should be accessible to all students free of charge, as long as they meet the minimum requirements. However, when it comes to Ivy League institutions, the emphasis on academic records should be paramount in the admissions process. Background considerations should only be taken into account if academic achievements are identical, serving as a tiebreaker. In such exceptional cases, it would be reasonable to prioritize students who have faced more challenging circumstances.
“Yea But What About Legacy Admissions?”
The argument about legacy admissions is often raised, and while it has ethical and moral implications, it is not a legal issue. If it were up to me, there would be no legacy admissions, and merit would be the sole basis for admission. However, it’s important not to conflate these two issues. Students from all backgrounds can benefit from factors like family connections, even if it is unfair. This is quite different from using race-based criteria.
Cause For Concern?
I do not claim that this is the perfect moment to end affirmative action, but it falls within a realm of reasonableness. A court that stated affirmative action should continue for a little longer would not trouble me, even if I don’t entirely agree. Moreover, I wouldn’t be as concerned about such a court’s stance on civil rights in general.
Leave a Reply