Nahla Owens, a Harvard University student, hugs Kashish Bastola, a rising sophomore at Harvard University, outside of the Supreme Court of the United States on Thursday, June 29, 2023 in Washington, D.C.
Harm Will Come From This Right-Wing Attack on Affirmative Action
The experience of California—where affirmative action was eliminated by Proposition 209 in 1996—shows that it still will be possible to have diversity in higher education, but it will take sustained effort and it will be difficult.
For decades, conservatives have railed against judicial activism, but Thursday’s decision striking down affirmative action by colleges and universities in admissions was the height of conservative judicial activism. The court rejected almost half a century of precedents, overturned decisions made by public and private universities across the country, and ignored the history of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution.
The experience of California—where affirmative action was eliminated by Proposition 209 in 1996—shows that it still will be possible to have diversity in higher education, but it will take sustained effort and it will be difficult.
In 1978, in University of California vs. Bakke, Justice Lewis Powell wrote the pivotal opinion and explained that colleges and universities have a compelling interest in having a diverse student body and may use race as one of many factors in admissions decisions to benefit minorities and enhance diversity. The Supreme Court reaffirmed this in 2003 in Grutter vs. Bollinger and again, most recently, in 2016, in Fisher vs. University of Texas, Austin. For decades, universities across the country have based their admissions policies on these holdings.
The immediate impact of Thursday’s decision cannot be overstated. At least in the short term, there will be a dramatic change in admissions decisions and students of color will be harmed.
Nor did the conservatives on the court pay attention to the judgment of university educators that diversity in the classroom matters in education. I have been a law professor for 43 years and have taught classes that are overwhelmingly white and those with a significant number of minority students. The discussions in the classrooms are vastly different and the educational experience for all students is enhanced when there is diversity.
As Justice Sandra Day O’Connor explained in the Grutter decision, preparing students for our diverse society requires that they experience diversity. But the six conservative justices have now substituted their views and flatly rejected decades of experience of those in higher education.
And nor did the conservative justices who profess to be originalists, and are committed to following the original meaning of the Constitution, pay attention to the history of the 14th Amendment. The Congress that ratified it in 1868 also adopted race conscious programs, like the Freedman’s Bureau that today undoubtedly would be considered affirmative action.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor, in a powerful dissent, cuts straight to the status of race in this country and explains why the Supreme Court itself has affirmed over and over again that affirmative action is constitutional. She wrote: “The Court cements a superficial rule of colorblindness as a constitutional principle in an endemically segregated society where race has always mattered and continues to matter. The Court subverts the constitutional guarantee of equal protection by further entrenching racial inequality in education, the very foundation of our democratic government and pluralistic society.”
The court’s decision on Thursday will have an enormous impact because it applies to all colleges and universities, public and private. There were two cases, one against a public university, University of North Carolina, and one against Harvard College, a private institution. The majority opinion, written by Chief Justice Roberts, said that the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment outlaws affirmative action for public universities and that Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits recipients of federal funds from discriminating based on race, prohibits it in private colleges.
The experience in California shows what could happen at universities all over this country. Proposition 209 had an immediate and devastating effect on diversity in the University of California. The number of Black and Latino first-year students fell by 50% in the years immediately after the ballot measure was passed. It took UCLA 19 years, until 2015, to reach its pre-Proposition 209 levels of diversity.
But the UC system—and state institutions in states like Michigan and Washington that also abolished affirmative action—have found ways to achieve diversity through concerted efforts. There still can be aggressive outreach and recruitment of students to form a diverse campus community.
Also, Roberts explicitly wrote, “Nothing in this opinion should be construed as prohibiting universities from considering an applicant’s discussion of how race affected his or her life, be it through discrimination, inspiration, or otherwise.”
This appears to allow admissions decisions to examine the diversity of experience, which includes the importance of race, in the applicant’s life. And as Sotomayor wrote, universities may consider other factors—like socioeconomic status—that may yield diversity. But the court left unclear whether any factors used in admissions decisions to achieve diversity are constitutional if they are done with the purpose and effect of increasing access for minority applicants.
The immediate impact of Thursday’s decision cannot be overstated. At least in the short term, there will be a dramatic change in admissions decisions and students of color will be harmed. It is crucial to remember that this decision is not about following legal principles as they have stood and been tested over and over for a generation. It is entirely about the ideology of six conservatives on the court again moving the law far to the right.
Urgent. It's never been this bad.
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission from the outset was simple. To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It’s never been this bad out there. And it’s never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed and doing some of its best and most important work, the threats we face are intensifying. Right now, with just four days to go in our Spring Campaign, we are not even halfway to our goal. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Can you make a gift right now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? There is no backup plan or rainy day fund. There is only you. —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
For decades, conservatives have railed against judicial activism, but Thursday’s decision striking down affirmative action by colleges and universities in admissions was the height of conservative judicial activism. The court rejected almost half a century of precedents, overturned decisions made by public and private universities across the country, and ignored the history of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution.
The experience of California—where affirmative action was eliminated by Proposition 209 in 1996—shows that it still will be possible to have diversity in higher education, but it will take sustained effort and it will be difficult.
In 1978, in University of California vs. Bakke, Justice Lewis Powell wrote the pivotal opinion and explained that colleges and universities have a compelling interest in having a diverse student body and may use race as one of many factors in admissions decisions to benefit minorities and enhance diversity. The Supreme Court reaffirmed this in 2003 in Grutter vs. Bollinger and again, most recently, in 2016, in Fisher vs. University of Texas, Austin. For decades, universities across the country have based their admissions policies on these holdings.
The immediate impact of Thursday’s decision cannot be overstated. At least in the short term, there will be a dramatic change in admissions decisions and students of color will be harmed.
Nor did the conservatives on the court pay attention to the judgment of university educators that diversity in the classroom matters in education. I have been a law professor for 43 years and have taught classes that are overwhelmingly white and those with a significant number of minority students. The discussions in the classrooms are vastly different and the educational experience for all students is enhanced when there is diversity.
As Justice Sandra Day O’Connor explained in the Grutter decision, preparing students for our diverse society requires that they experience diversity. But the six conservative justices have now substituted their views and flatly rejected decades of experience of those in higher education.
And nor did the conservative justices who profess to be originalists, and are committed to following the original meaning of the Constitution, pay attention to the history of the 14th Amendment. The Congress that ratified it in 1868 also adopted race conscious programs, like the Freedman’s Bureau that today undoubtedly would be considered affirmative action.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor, in a powerful dissent, cuts straight to the status of race in this country and explains why the Supreme Court itself has affirmed over and over again that affirmative action is constitutional. She wrote: “The Court cements a superficial rule of colorblindness as a constitutional principle in an endemically segregated society where race has always mattered and continues to matter. The Court subverts the constitutional guarantee of equal protection by further entrenching racial inequality in education, the very foundation of our democratic government and pluralistic society.”
The court’s decision on Thursday will have an enormous impact because it applies to all colleges and universities, public and private. There were two cases, one against a public university, University of North Carolina, and one against Harvard College, a private institution. The majority opinion, written by Chief Justice Roberts, said that the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment outlaws affirmative action for public universities and that Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits recipients of federal funds from discriminating based on race, prohibits it in private colleges.
The experience in California shows what could happen at universities all over this country. Proposition 209 had an immediate and devastating effect on diversity in the University of California. The number of Black and Latino first-year students fell by 50% in the years immediately after the ballot measure was passed. It took UCLA 19 years, until 2015, to reach its pre-Proposition 209 levels of diversity.
But the UC system—and state institutions in states like Michigan and Washington that also abolished affirmative action—have found ways to achieve diversity through concerted efforts. There still can be aggressive outreach and recruitment of students to form a diverse campus community.
Also, Roberts explicitly wrote, “Nothing in this opinion should be construed as prohibiting universities from considering an applicant’s discussion of how race affected his or her life, be it through discrimination, inspiration, or otherwise.”
This appears to allow admissions decisions to examine the diversity of experience, which includes the importance of race, in the applicant’s life. And as Sotomayor wrote, universities may consider other factors—like socioeconomic status—that may yield diversity. But the court left unclear whether any factors used in admissions decisions to achieve diversity are constitutional if they are done with the purpose and effect of increasing access for minority applicants.
The immediate impact of Thursday’s decision cannot be overstated. At least in the short term, there will be a dramatic change in admissions decisions and students of color will be harmed. It is crucial to remember that this decision is not about following legal principles as they have stood and been tested over and over for a generation. It is entirely about the ideology of six conservatives on the court again moving the law far to the right.
For decades, conservatives have railed against judicial activism, but Thursday’s decision striking down affirmative action by colleges and universities in admissions was the height of conservative judicial activism. The court rejected almost half a century of precedents, overturned decisions made by public and private universities across the country, and ignored the history of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution.
The experience of California—where affirmative action was eliminated by Proposition 209 in 1996—shows that it still will be possible to have diversity in higher education, but it will take sustained effort and it will be difficult.
In 1978, in University of California vs. Bakke, Justice Lewis Powell wrote the pivotal opinion and explained that colleges and universities have a compelling interest in having a diverse student body and may use race as one of many factors in admissions decisions to benefit minorities and enhance diversity. The Supreme Court reaffirmed this in 2003 in Grutter vs. Bollinger and again, most recently, in 2016, in Fisher vs. University of Texas, Austin. For decades, universities across the country have based their admissions policies on these holdings.
The immediate impact of Thursday’s decision cannot be overstated. At least in the short term, there will be a dramatic change in admissions decisions and students of color will be harmed.
Nor did the conservatives on the court pay attention to the judgment of university educators that diversity in the classroom matters in education. I have been a law professor for 43 years and have taught classes that are overwhelmingly white and those with a significant number of minority students. The discussions in the classrooms are vastly different and the educational experience for all students is enhanced when there is diversity.
As Justice Sandra Day O’Connor explained in the Grutter decision, preparing students for our diverse society requires that they experience diversity. But the six conservative justices have now substituted their views and flatly rejected decades of experience of those in higher education.
And nor did the conservative justices who profess to be originalists, and are committed to following the original meaning of the Constitution, pay attention to the history of the 14th Amendment. The Congress that ratified it in 1868 also adopted race conscious programs, like the Freedman’s Bureau that today undoubtedly would be considered affirmative action.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor, in a powerful dissent, cuts straight to the status of race in this country and explains why the Supreme Court itself has affirmed over and over again that affirmative action is constitutional. She wrote: “The Court cements a superficial rule of colorblindness as a constitutional principle in an endemically segregated society where race has always mattered and continues to matter. The Court subverts the constitutional guarantee of equal protection by further entrenching racial inequality in education, the very foundation of our democratic government and pluralistic society.”
The court’s decision on Thursday will have an enormous impact because it applies to all colleges and universities, public and private. There were two cases, one against a public university, University of North Carolina, and one against Harvard College, a private institution. The majority opinion, written by Chief Justice Roberts, said that the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment outlaws affirmative action for public universities and that Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits recipients of federal funds from discriminating based on race, prohibits it in private colleges.
The experience in California shows what could happen at universities all over this country. Proposition 209 had an immediate and devastating effect on diversity in the University of California. The number of Black and Latino first-year students fell by 50% in the years immediately after the ballot measure was passed. It took UCLA 19 years, until 2015, to reach its pre-Proposition 209 levels of diversity.
But the UC system—and state institutions in states like Michigan and Washington that also abolished affirmative action—have found ways to achieve diversity through concerted efforts. There still can be aggressive outreach and recruitment of students to form a diverse campus community.
Also, Roberts explicitly wrote, “Nothing in this opinion should be construed as prohibiting universities from considering an applicant’s discussion of how race affected his or her life, be it through discrimination, inspiration, or otherwise.”
This appears to allow admissions decisions to examine the diversity of experience, which includes the importance of race, in the applicant’s life. And as Sotomayor wrote, universities may consider other factors—like socioeconomic status—that may yield diversity. But the court left unclear whether any factors used in admissions decisions to achieve diversity are constitutional if they are done with the purpose and effect of increasing access for minority applicants.
The immediate impact of Thursday’s decision cannot be overstated. At least in the short term, there will be a dramatic change in admissions decisions and students of color will be harmed. It is crucial to remember that this decision is not about following legal principles as they have stood and been tested over and over for a generation. It is entirely about the ideology of six conservatives on the court again moving the law far to the right.