Affirmatively deaf to the uniqueness of America

On June 29, 2023, the United States Supreme Court issued its decision in the Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College case, effectively ending affirmative action programs in colleges and universities. While some may see this decision as a victory, others – and particularly those belonging to communities who have strived for equality in education for hundreds of years – see this decision as an oppressive defeat.

What this decision demonstrates is that we have Supreme Court Justices sitting in the highest court of the land who are truly blind to the unjust economic and societal struggles experienced by so many in this great country of ours. This unfortunate decision scrapped decades of precedent, including the 1978 decision in Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, which upheld that the limited consideration of race in university admissions are allowable to combat historic discrimination against Black people and other minorities, and more recently the 2003 decision in Grutter v. Bollinger, which affirmed that race could be considered as a factor in the admission’s process because universities had a compelling interest in maintaining diverse campuses.

What’s unfortunate is that this decision is selective in its ruling and approach. The Court had the option to issue a decision that was limited to “all preferential treatment for race, including legacy-based admissions that violate the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause.” However, the Justices decided to take it a step further by further limiting and impeding opportunities for marginalized groups. Today’s ruling affirmed that if you grew up with a silver spoon in your mouth, and are a child of a Harvard alum, the possibility of admission to one of the most prestigious universities is more likely than that of a first generation American, or a student belonging to a marginalized community.

While the practice of affirmative action may be imperfect and may have an impact on tuition and revenue, albeit minimal or non-existent for certain applicants due to their need for financial assistance, at its core it provides economic opportunity, upward mobility and lifelong opportunities to individuals who may have never had the opportunity to advance due to their race and economic circumstances. Individuals like me.

The Court’s conservative majority insists on overturning decades of precedent, which is not only limiting educational opportunities to obtain higher education for marginalized groups, but their broad opinions may also bleed into K-12 public and charter school admissions. As an example, admissions staff at charter schools may need to revisit their admissions criteria to ensure race is not a factor in their decision or risk suit.

Justice Roberts for the conservative majority wrote that both Harvard and UNC’s affirmative action programs “lack of sufficiently focused and measurable objectives warranting the use of race, unavoidably employ race in a negative manner, involving race stereotyping, and lack meaningful end points.”

Respectfully, Justice Roberts needs to get out more because the measurable objectives and outcomes of the affirmative action programs that have been allowed at universities across our nation for decades are clearly visible, at least to people like me. Today, businesses, C-suite board rooms, educational institutions, and government agencies are comprised of more diverse people and opinions. In the lifetime of the current Supreme Court Justices, our nation has had its first non-white U.S. President and Vice-President. While the measurable objectives are visible to the naked eye, the Supreme Court’s Conservative Majority has chosen to turn a blind eye to necessary programs that have leveled the playing field in the most important societal sphere: Education.