SCOTUS Decision on Affirmative Action in Education

While I respect the Supreme Court Of The United States (SCOTUS) authority, I feel compelled to express my concern for their recent ruling regarding affirmative action in education. Applying affirmative action laws to education is fundamentally flawed and undermines the principles of equal opportunity and meritocracy.

Affirmative action in the labor and education sectors is often convoluted and misinterpreted (Miller, 2019). Affirmative action was established to address historical injustices and promote diversity in the workplace. Executive Order 11246 was signed by President Lyndon B. Johnson and derived from the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This legislation required federal contractors who do more than $10,000 of business to take affirmative action to ensure employment and fair treatment of applicants and employees regardless of race, creed, color, ethnicity, sex, religion, or national origin. The education sector has inferred racially conscious admissions policies as affirmative action initiatives (Miller, 2019).?

Burke (2021) noted the importance of incorporating policies in academia designed to increase student representation of historically underrepresented groups, which improves the academic experience and outcomes for all students. Mickey-Pabello and Graces (2018) agree with Burke (2021), speaking to the importance of this measure in medical schools to improve workforce diversity and reduce health disparities. Burke (2021) pointed to SCOTUS decisions supporting race-based admissions policies and suggested the limitations of this supported practice will culminate in constant challenges. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson provided the most comprehensive, coherent, and rational argument for race-conscious admissions in her dissent of the SCOTUS ruling in (Students For Fair Admissions (SFFA) v. University of North Carolina, 2023).

Mickey-Pabello & Graces (2018) recounted the SCOTUS decision to uphold Fisher v. University of Texas (2016). The author noted the SCOTUS emphasis of a?compelling interest?in race-based admissions policies but that they should endure?strict scrutiny?under the equal protection clause. The controversy among the justices is how strict scrutiny is to be applied and for what purpose. Strict scrutiny arose during the University of California v. Bakke case (1978). SCOTUS ruled that quotas were unconstitutional in this case (Mickey-Pabello & Graces, 2018). However, the Grutter v. Bollinger case (1997) affirmed that?narrowly tailored?uses of race (presenting this example of strict scrutiny) is protected by the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment (Grutter v. Bollinger, 2021). The most recent case refuting affirmative action in education is SFFA v. Harvard University (2014). The SFFA claimed Harvard discriminated against Asian Americans in its admissions policy (Walsh, 2021). A federal district court heard the arguments and denied the SFFA claims. The case was appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals and upheld a year later.

By ruling that race should no longer be considered a factor in the admissions process, SCOTUS has affirmed the prophetic remarks of Burke (2021). This decision opens the door for additional challenges to race-conscious practices supported by affirmative action practices. SCOTUS created more confusion by suggesting that race can be considered in essays and that the military can continue its race-based admissions practices. SCOTUS has also opened the door to socio-political influences in the education sector and beyond.

Abraham Lincoln said?It is the eternal struggle between these two principles — right and wrong — throughout the world. They are the two principles that have stood face to face from the beginning of time; and will ever continue to struggle. The one is the common right of humanity, and the other the divine right of kings. It is the same principle in whatever shape it develops itself. It is the same spirit that says, You toil and work and earn bread, and I'll eat it. No matter in what shape it comes, whether from the mouth of a king who seeks to bestride the people of his own nation and live by the fruit of their labor, or from one race of men as an apology for enslaving another race, it is the same tyrannical principle.

Affirmative action in education is yet another label that those who oppose access and opportunity for black and brown folk have used to attack minimal gains in the education sector throughout the last several centuries. Most importantly, these voices have historically gone on the offensive when their power has been threatened by the perception that a minority group has risen to their social, economic, or political power level. Harken back to slave patrols, reconstruction, the Indian Removal Act, trail of tears, separate but equal laws, Klu Klux Klan, Tulsa Greenwood Race Massacre, Wilmington, North Carolina Race Massacre, and Asian American Internment Camps as examples of systematic opposition to perceived power losses.

Considering the history of the United States, the recent SCOTUS decision runs counter to the idea of a level playing field where all individuals, regardless of race or ethnicity, have an equal chance to succeed. The history of America has resulted in a system where some students are favored or disadvantaged based on factors beyond their control rather than their individual merit and qualifications. Given the existential threats to success that black and brown students face while striving to realize college admission, consideration for a racial classification forced upon them by political forces that, in the same context, devalued that existence is a necessity for equity. The American political and legal systems continue to live by the fruit of the labor of those it deems to be less deserving. This idiocracy is the same ideology that defended the institution of slavery, the removal of indigenous peoples and Asian Americans from their homes. John Meacham described this as a struggle between?our worst instincts and our better angels.

? In its majority decision, SCOTUS concluded that (Grutter, 539 U. S., 2003) was directive in asserting a?logical endpoint?to race considerations as a?deviation from the norm of equal treatment?as a?temporary matter. The problem with its logic is (considering the beginning of slavery in 1619 to SCOTUS ideals around the end of the need for race considerations in the ruling of Brown v. Board of Education in 1968) that it considers 69 years of desegregation equivalent to 335 years of degradation and dehumanization. SCOTUS suggests that ratifying the Fourteenth Amendment solved the race issue in America. Only through a privileged perspective can this conclusion have merit. This logic is what Lincoln referred to as the?divine right of kings?and made crystal clear by John Meacham as our?worst instincts. Even more enlightening was Judge Ketanji Brown’s assessment,?Let them eat cake.

References

Burke, C. (2021). Underrepresentation in higher education: Affirmative action’s role in bridging the gap. The Journal of Physician Assistant Education, 32, 54-57. https://doi.org/10.1097/JPA.

Francis, V. (2018). Accepting uncertainty: Fisher V. University of Texas and race-conscious admissions. Journal of College & University Law, 43(2), 124-150.

Grutter v. Bollinger. (n.d.). Oyez. (U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, 2003). Retrieved August 12, 2021, from https://www.oyez.org/cases/2002/02-241

Mickey-Pabello, D., & Graces, L. M. (2018). Addressing racial health inequities: Understanding the impact of affirmative action bans on applications and admissions in medical schools. American Journal of Education, 125(1), 79-108. https://doi.org/10.1086/699813

Miller, C. (2019). Affirmative action and its persistence effects: A new perspective. California Management Review, 61(3), 19-33. https://doi.org/10.1177/0008125619849443

Walsh, C. (2021, May 17). Harvard argues admissions suit isn’t worthy of Supreme Court review. The Harvard Gazette. Retrieved August 12, 2021, from https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2021/05/harvard-argues-admissions-suit-isnt-worthy-of-supreme-court-review/

Students for fair admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellow of Harvard College, 600 U.S. (2023). Retrieved July 3, 2023, from https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/20-1199_hgdj.pdf