27 October 2023
In a landmark decision that has sent shockwaves through the nation, the United States Supreme Court made a pivotal ruling regarding affirmative action policies. In a historic move, Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, 600 U.S. 181 (2023) overrules race-based admissions under affirmative action, a long-debated and often contentious policy designed to address historical and ongoing racial disparities. This decision ends affirmative action entirely, overruling 50 years of court precedent. As the ramifications of this decision begin to unfold, it becomes imperative to delve into the intricacies of this momentous ruling and its potential impact on the future of racial inequality in the United States.
Affirmative action is a broad policy “aimed at increasing workplace and educational opportunities for people who are underrepresented” [1]. This policy was developed in relation to the Civil Rights Act of 1940, which banned discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, and national origin [2]. Affirmative action was meant to enforce the Civil Rights Act, acting at the institutional level to combat systemic racism.
Affirmative action has evolved over the years into what we now know it as. In 1965, President Lyndon B. Johnson issued Executive Order 11246, requiring the use of affirmative action by all government contractors and subcontractors to expand job opportunities for minorities. In 1967, the order was amended to include affirmative action for women. Later, President Richard M. Nixon signed the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, requiring agencies to submit an affirmative action plan to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission for the hiring, placement, and advancement of individuals with disabilities. Fast forward to 1978, the U.S. Supreme Court, in Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 912, upheld the use of race as one factor in choosing among qualified applicants for admission. In United Steel Workers of America, AFL-CIO v. Weber (1979) the Supreme court ruled that “race-conscious affirmative action efforts designed to eliminate a conspicuous racial imbalance in an employer’s workforce resulting from past discrimination are permissible if they are temporary and do not violate the rights of white employees.” In the 1994 Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Peña decision, the Supreme Court ruled that federal affirmative action is constitutional as long as it is “narrowly tailored to accomplish a compelling government interest such as remedying discrimination” [3]. While affirmative action has broadened over the years to incorporate more marginalized groups, not all the case law surrounding these policies was reductive.
Preceding Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard and Students for Fair Admissions v. UNC (2023) are Gratz v. Bollinger (2003) and Grutter v. Bollinger (2003). In these two cases, the plaintiffs went to court arguing that they were denied admission at the University of Michigan due to race, specifically being white. Gratz v. Bollinger acknowledged that the university’s admission policy was “not narrowly tailored to achieve respondents’ asserted, compelling interest in diversity” and that they violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment [4]. Grutter v. Bollinger, on the other hand, concluded that no acceptance or rejection can be tied to a specific variable, in this case race, and upheld the University of Michigan’s admission policies [5].
The Supreme Court’s ruling in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard and Students for Fair Admissions v. UNC ends race-based admission policies in colleges and universities. The Supreme Court’s decision to overturn affirmative action initiatives raises significant concerns regarding the court’s current legitimacy and the perception of an unrestrained exercise of power. With a lack of unchecked bias, the Supreme Court gives individuals who aren’t voted in by the people the power to exacerbate issues of racial inequality and injustice.
The issue with the Supreme Court’s ruling is that it doesn’t take into account legacy admissions, another admissions practice that is extremely biased towards a subset of the population. For instance, about 35% of Harvard’s admissions are legacy students [6]. Considering that 70% of Harvard’s student body is white, this implies a cycle of elitism and privilege rather than merit and hard work. A common criticism from people who are against affirmative action is that just because some admitted students are legacies doesn’t mean that those students didn’t work hard. If that fact is true, the same can be applied when considering race as a factor in admissions – just because they’re not white doesn’t mean that they didn’t work hard.
This ruling implies that socioeconomic background, student’s skin color, and the circumstances of their birth have no effect on their ability to meet traditional standards of merit set by college admissions [7]. Studies show that “across all grades, students of color are much more likely to be held back in school than their white classmates.” A study on Pittsburgh‘s Inequality Across Gender and Race shows that persistent disparities within Pittsburgh are the result of both national and local policies and practices. It details how white male infants are less likely to die and working white men are spread relatively equitably across different industries. However, for black men, Pittsburgh is considerably less livable when it comes to health and unemployment outcomes, which are far lower than white men [8].
The question that arises from here is how colleges address diversity in their admissions process going forward. I think colleges will still take into account how one’s race has affected their experiences and the choices they’ve made in their life because diversity is very important for students to understand before they enter the workplace. Diversity is a key component to a strong education; hearing other people’s experiences and learning to work with different people is what helps students put their best foot forward in life. I think that the Supreme Court’s ruling will make colleges consider race to a lesser degree than they used to during admissions, which will only exacerbate the privilege and elitism of certain colleges, continuing the wealth gap between white people and people of color. However, I don’t think it is possible to erase race from the college admissions process, which relies so heavily on one’s experiences and how they shape who you are.
My opinion on affirmative action has always been that it’s a Band-Aid solution to the overarching issue of racism and bias when it comes to hiring. Overall, I think that affirmative action could be a good thing and a step towards fairness. Currently, I don’t believe we are in a place where affirmative action is no longer needed. For affirmative action to be unnecessary, there needs to be a fundamental change in our institutions to fix systemic racism. There’s still large amounts of inequity all across the nation that are not being addressed when it comes to the public education system and access to certain educational opportunities. Conversations about race and politics are impossible to avoid. Referencing that people are disadvantaged and implying that a racial hierarchy exists in society could acknowledge how white people at the top benefit from the struggles people of color endure. Especially in terms of politics, it feels as though white conservatives think that conversations regarding race are asking them to feel guilty about being white. I think, in a way, people are advocating for the elimination of affirmative action to deny that they reap the benefits of the system. Race, class, and gender are all heavily intertwined subjects, and understanding intersectionality is crucial to moving toward a just society where affirmative action is not needed.
I also believe it’s not the Supreme Court’s place to make this ruling and ban affirmative action. By doing so, they not only overrule over half a century of judicial precedent but also barely address other forms of bias, such as legacy admissions, nepotism in the workforce, etc. The people on the Supreme Court, who are not elected officials, are making significant decisions that impact so many people who are without the proper resources and knowledge of what all this means. I think affirmative action is a tiny seed in this big watermelon of an issue of systemic racism that we, as a country, do a very poor job of addressing.
Image via Pexels Free Photos.
References
(1) Kenton, Will. “What Is Affirmative Action? How It Works and Example.” Investopedia. Accessed October 22, 2023. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/a/affirmative-action.asp.
(2) Sandroff, Ronni. “What Is the Civil Rights Act of 1964? What’s Included and History.” Investopedia. Accessed October 22, 2023. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/civil-rights-act-1964.asp.
(3) “Affirmative Action Policies throughout History.” AAAED. Accessed October 22, 2023. https://www.aaaed.org/aaaed/History_of_Affirmative_Action.asp.
(4) Gratz v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 244, 123 S. Ct. 2411, 156 L. Ed. 2d 257 (2003).
(5) Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306, 123 S. Ct. 2325, 156 L. Ed. 2d 304 (2003).
(6) Megalli, Mark. “So Your Dad Went to Harvard: Now What about the Lower Board Scores of White Legacies?” The Journal of Blacks in Higher Education, no. 7 (1995): 71–73. https://doi.org/10.2307/2963435.
(7) Moses, Michele S. “Affirmative Action and the Creation of More Favorable Contexts of Choice.” American Educational Research Journal 38, no. 1 (2001): 3–36. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3202512.
(8) Howell, Junia, Sara Goodkind, Leah Jacobs, Dominique Branson and Elizabeth Miller. “Pittsburgh’s Inequality across Gender and Race.” Gender Analysis White Papers. City of Pittsburgh’s Gender Equity Commission. (2019).
Policy & Political Review 