Rob Duston, an attorney with Saul Ewing Arnstein & Lehr in Washington, D.C., predicted we'll see the court reject some major precedents this fall. "They are rolling back a number of long-standing provisions and principles they have been skeptical of for a long time," he said. "Precedent doesn't mean as much to this court." When Affirmative Action was first implemented, the goal was to remedy the effects of slavery and segregation. The Supreme Court case in 1978 was narrowly upheld. In 2003, the court was also divided, with the result being a 5 to 4 vote. In 2016, also with a 5 to 4 affirmative action was again upheld. This issue has been extremely contentious within the courts in the past 60 years. On the current Supreme Court, with its 6-3 conservative majority, there are more than enough votes to achieve that goal. Chief Justice John Roberts, the conservative who balked at overturning Roe, has rejected affirmative action before, writing in 2007 that “the way to get past racial discrimination is to get past racial discrimination.”
If race-based admissions become prohibited, selective universities will focus on who is a first-generation college student, and other similar factors. Universities will start to struggle to admit as many Black and Latino students as they currently do. In the near to medium term, then, we are likely to see a full-on oppositional struggle between at least some elite universities and the federal courts on the question of diversity in admissions. This will lead to major changes in the short term to the makeup of students. A landmark 2023 affirmative action decision will have far-reaching consequences similar to the reversal of Roe vs Wade for higher education as a whole.
8 comments:
It's honestly absurd to blame unfair college admissions on the basis of universities diversifying their students' racial demographic. Are we forgetting about the 2019 college admissions bribery scandal? Putting race aside, the rich have always had an unfair advantage into admission-- a criminal offense which puts students in top colleges, and for what? Legacies, first-generation students, and other various factors will come to play in the college admissions process; as you mentioned, it's really one or the other. The Supreme Court is, again, taking another step back with the reversal of Roe v. Wade and now ending the era of college diversity.
It's disheartening to see that the Supreme Court is trying to eliminate opportunities given to disadvantaged communities. College admissions favor those that are wealthy already. Even if we are not talking about legacies and people who donate buildings for their kids to get in, there are more educational opportunities offered and a better chance of getting good scores. The wealth distribution shows that Black and Latino families earn half as much as the average white household, and education plays a huge part in household income. If diversifying universities no longer becomes important, then thousands, if not millions, of Black and Latino students are essentially denied higher education, and as a result, a better chance at getting a high earned job. I can only imagine the wealth gap increasing between Black and Latino communities and the white community.
I agree with the comments already up on this post. I don't think it makes sense to get rid of race as a factor when there is no plan to replace it. Affirmative action is a way to give disadvantaged people opportunities for higher education and has been successful in doing so. Yes, there are issues with using race as a factor but as Julia mentioned, certain people will always have an advantage and some people will be disadvantaged. Taking away affirmative action doesn't make things more equal, it just goes back to giving those certain people advantages that they already enjoy in their daily life. If there is no plan to replace affirmative action, taking it away doesn't seem to actually be in the name of equality.
It's surprising how far the Supreme Court and those who are in power are taking this - that they would eliminate affirmative action. I would argue, actually, that affirmative action doesn't do enough as it is. As a Times analysis found, in the nation's top universities, black and Hispanic freshman were more underrepresented in 2015 than they were in 1980. As Julia was saying, despite all the progress we seemed to be making, there is still a major prevalence of inequality within our society - economically, demographic-wise, etc. - and now, we are taking even more steps backwards. Higher education is essentially the only gateway to economic stability and a significant demographic of U.S. citizens can't be guaranteed this. If affirmative action is taken away, as Leia said, there needs to be an implementation to replace it. I see one of the only acceptable plans to tackle these inequalities as one that is implemented earlier in the education system, before college, as making an impact earlier in these student's lives can potentially make a more influential impact on ending this vicious cycle.
I agree with everyone who has already spoken in the comment above. Since the Supreme Court overturn of Roe v Wade and the hearing of this court case, we continue to take a step back. It is returning to a system where certain people with advantages still have the same advantages and others don't. Action gives underrepresented communities a chance to achieve higher education and shrinks the wealth gap between Black and Latino communities and white communities. It's not fair to get rid of a system that promotes diversity and higher education when there is no other plan proposed.
While I agree with many of the points everyone is making, colleges shouldn't be admitting or rejecting students on the basis of just race. I have no issue with colleges having the goal to support underrepresented minorities or lower-income students through holistic review, but affirmative action isn't required to accomplish this. Disadvantaged students will still have an opportunity to succeed, as colleges measure success given access to resources, meaning high-achieving students from low-income neighborhoods are given a well-deserved advantage in college admissions. Colleges strive to foster innovation and learning through diverse classes. I believe colleges can accomplish this by bringing together people from across the world from all different lifestyles and backgrounds to learn together; however, affirmative action and race-based admissions aren't the way to go.
While I also agree with many points in other comments, Christien makes a strong argument. Colleges are right to want a diverse class, but affirmative action may not always be the right way to achieve this.
In the lens of college admissions: Should a rich minority student have an advantage over a poor white student?
The answer is not always clear, and there are other ways to achieve class diversity than affirmative action (i.e. taking into consideration socio-economic status, location, etc)
Although I understand where Logan and Christien are coming from, I don't feel that basing admissions off of location or socio-economic status would be an adequate replacement for affirmative action.
Even if a Black student and White student live in the same area and earn the same income, the Black student is more likely to have access to less resources and receive less opportunities due to implicit racial biases. For example, Black students are significantly less likely to be referred to GATE (gifted and talented education) programs even after controlling classroom/school characteristics, test scores, socio-economic status, health, etc (https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/2332858415622175)
Post a Comment