Via Flickr
By The Vanguard Staff
WASHINGTON, DC – The ACLU, among others, slammed the U.S. Supreme Court decision Thursday to restrict a school’s ability to address systemic racial equalities in higher education, calling the rulings “part of a larger effort to rewrite our nation’s history, erase the lived experiences of people of color, and obstruct our full and equal participation in our democracy.”
In two rulings in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard and Students for Fair Admissions v. UNC , SCOTUS’ decisions striking down affirmative action is leading many to fear “applications from Black, Latino and other students of color will drop, and say a key priority will be to assure those students that they matter and that campus commitment to diversity remains strong,” said the Los Angeles Times.
The ACLU did admit the court “recognized that the values of diversity are ‘commendable goals’ and that schools can consider applicants’ own discussion of how race has impacted their lives.”
In the opinion by Chief Justice Roberts, wrote the ACLU, the court emphasized “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.”
The sweeping decision eliminated the use of race in admissions decisions nationwide for the first time since the high court allowed the practice in 1978 to promote diversity. Students for Fair Admissions, a nonprofit opposed to racial preferences, alleged that Harvard and the University of North Carolina violate constitutional guarantees of equal protection by considering race in admissions decisions.
The high court agreed in a majority opinion written by Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. The ruling noted that the appellate court found Harvard’s affirmative action program resulted in fewer admissions of Asian American students and the Ivy League campus’ assertion that race was never used as a negative factor in selections “cannot withstand scrutiny.”
But Roberts, noted The Times, also wrote the decision will still allow students to write about their backgrounds in college essays, but “institutions must consider that background in the context of applicants’ ‘quality of character or unique ability that the particular applicant can contribute to the university’ and treat them based on experiences as individuals, not on the basis of race.”
The Times said the rulings mean, “Moving forward, universities can and should also examine and improve their policies and practices to expand opportunity, including broadening recruitment efforts to underserved communities, developing robust middle school and high school pipelines, increasing need-based supports, and improving campus climate.”
“The Supreme Court’s decision today does not change the responsibility of colleges and universities to increase educational opportunities for students of color,” said ReNika Moore, Director of the ACLU’s Racial Justice Program.
Moore added, “Colleges have long touted diversity as imperative to creating enriching educational environments for all students — our institutions of higher education must double down on that commitment and advance policies that ensure every student gets a fair shot. In fact, colleges can still consider race in alternative ways and students can continue to discuss race and how it has shaped their character or unique abilities in the college admissions process.”
“Our nation’s future as a thriving multiracial democracy depends on students having the freedom and opportunity to learn, work together, and understand what unites us. We will continue to fight to realize that future and remove the barriers and inequities Black, Latino, Native American, Asian American, and other underrepresented groups experience, not only in higher education, but throughout the K-12 system,” Moore concluded.
Christopher Nellum, executive director of Ed Trust-West, a nonprofit organization focused on education equity, told the LA Times, “We’re really worried about private colleges and universities and what it means for representation. Young people, particularly young people of color, …are going receive this as a message that they don’t belong.”
“Many campus leaders, bracing for this outcome, had begun planning how to extend opportunity to all students through more robust recruitment and academic preparation programs in underserved communities of color. But they also worry about the cost of such efforts — or whether their state officials have the political will to carry them out,” added The LA Times.
“The decision won’t directly affect the University of California or California State University. State voters banned affirmative action at public campuses by approving Proposition 209 in 1996. But more than 80 private institutions in the state have been free to consider race in admissions decisions and many have watched the growing challenges to diversity initiatives with alarm,” said the LA Times.
In response to the ruling, Traci Griffith, Director of the ACLU of Massachusetts’ Racial Justice Program, said, “The movement against affirmative action is part of a larger effort to rewrite our nation’s history, erase the lived experiences of people of color, and obstruct our full and equal participation in our democracy.
“We’re seeing books by Black and LGBTQ authors banned from school curricula in an attempt to stop students at all levels from learning and talking about race and gender in public schools. We will continue to fight these discriminatory policies. We are united by our shared commitment to opportunity and freedom from discrimination and we know that when everyone has access to what they need to reach their highest potential, we all benefit.”
Last year, the American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Massachusetts, and the ACLU of North Carolina filed an amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to uphold universities’ ability to consider race in college admissions.
In the brief, the ACLU said it “argued that race-conscious admissions policies like affirmative action have helped address our country’s long history of discrimination and systemic inequality in education by increasing access for underrepresented groups who face systemic barriers to higher education (and) a holistic, race-conscious admissions process is the extension of a university’s academic freedom to assemble a student body across all races and ethnicities.”
Kristi Graunke Legal Director of the ACLU of North Carolina, noted, “Students should continue to discuss race and their lived experiences in the college admissions process. The decisions should not prevent colleges and universities from inquiring about such experiences in relation to their university missions. Nothing in the Court’s decisions in these cases should prevent that.”
Graunke added, “We must invest in pathways that increase access to opportunities for students across all races and ethnicities, and address discrimination and systemic racial inequalities that persist.”
The LA Times cited a 2019 Pew Research study of 1,364 four-year institutions that showed that most accept most applications and “only 17 admitted fewer than 10 percent of applicants — including Stanford, Harvard and Yale — and 29 accepted between 10 percent and 20 percent, including USC.”
There is still Affirmative Action they only limited it to the rich and elite by allowing preferences for legacy and donors.
There’s still affirmative action as everyone knows that colleges find ways to skirt the law.
You mean like this?
Seems to me that students who are the “wrong” color could simply lie about their race and lived experiences. That is, unless it’s done in person.
And that if they’re subsequently “found out” and kicked out of the university as a result, perhaps that would lead to yet another Supreme court decision.
But I doubt that very many would think of this.
The problem is that there doesn’t seem to be any negative consequences for universities who continue to try to skirt the law, in an effort to impose their own beliefs.
Of course, some names might “give it away”, regardless.
The ACLU lost its way a long time ago. They are the “enemy” of their own claimed mission.
With this SCOTUS decision I can imagine there will be many more lawsuits from enrollees who feel they have been unfairly skipped over.
Until/unless individuals at universities are held personally-responsible for this, change may not occur (easily).
As it is, leaders (such as Gary May) are essentially/openly declaring defiance. What does that tell you regarding consequences?
And for what it’s worth, he’s probably correct.
I’m expected an effective countersuit that takes on “legacy” and “donor” admissions that overweight admissions to whites.
It’s (no longer) about “whites”.
It’s about “Asians”.
Neither of which I “particularly” care about, any more than any other “group”. Nor should anyone else.
I don’t know why some assume that any of this is “personal”, based upon one’s own personal immutable characteristics.
Is anyone on this blog applying for university admission for themselves?
And what does this have to do with “legacy” admissions, on a personal level? As George Carlin once said, “you ain’t in the club”. (And he directed that to his ENTIRE audience.)
You can say it’s about Asians, but it’s not about Asians. There was a really detailed analysis that shows that Asians have not been hurt at all by Affirmative Action (which is why most Asians actually support Affirmative Action). If you look at the other article posted today, you’ll see that following Prop 209, Asian admissions to UC actually went down.
From an analysis in the LA Times: “ In California, the ban on affirmative action at public universities imposed more than 25 years ago had little positive impact for Asian Americans. Asian American and white students may have been marginally more likely to get into their first choice of college versus their second choice after the ban, but overall access to the top tier of UC campuses was unchanged, as were economic outcomes. The ban, however, had major negative impacts on Black and Latino students’ enrollment at the most prestigious campuses, drove down their applications to the UC system overall and dramatically decreased earnings over time.”
But hey, keep telling yourself it’s about Asians.
It’s about Asians. Definitely not whites, despite how “incovenient” that is for those pushing an agenda.
Affirmative action is (supposedly) illegal in California, at least.
And while you’re at it, ask any person (Asian, or any other “race”) if they support being denied admission (or a job) based upon their “race”. I suspect you’d get a different answer than what you or others are claiming.
And you call that “not being hurt” by “unofficial” Affirmative Action, apparently. By the way, do the statistics include non-resident students?
Already, indicating a “problem” regarding non-biased reporting.
That entire paragraph was prefaced on “the ban” on Affirmative action. Do you even read what you post?
Uh, huh. Your point?
I don’t need to “tell myself” that, as they’re “over-represented” in universities. Which I don’t “object to”. And I’d tell you the same thing it if was any other “race” that was over-represented.
That’s may (or may not be) a sign that something is wrong with something else, not the “system”.
Asians are the group that would be disproportionately-denied admissions based upon their “race”. This isn’t even in dispute. The facts are what they are.
Now, I realize this doesn’t fit with the narrative, but that’s not “my” problem. Nor is it your problem, unless you buy into the narrative.
Yes what I posted was an analysis of the impact of the affirmative action ban on Asians. Which concluded it was negligible, which is also borne out by the data posted from the UC President.
The affirmative action lawsuit was literally filed by and Asian, Jon Wang, 18.
The case was filed Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA), an organization led by conservative legal strategist Edward Blum, represented a group of anonymous Asian Americans rejected from Harvard. Lower courts denied the suit and called into question their statistical analysis. One analyst noted that “not a single Asian American student has testified that they faced discrimination in the high profile Harvard case.”
Found this as well: “ Wang got 1590 on the SAT and had a 4.65 GPA but he was rejected from Harvard, MIT, Princeton, U.C. Berkeley, and Cal Tech. California schools have been barred from considering race since 1998 so Wang’s critique that affirmative action kept him from getting into U.C. Berkeley and Cal Tech makes no sense. Wang applied to highly selective schools — Harvard’s acceptance rate is 3.4% and Princeton’s is about 4%. Every year a lot of students get 1600 on the SAT and still don’t get into those schools because college admissions is much more than a numbers game. ”
It would be interesting to peel back a few layers here and see what’s really going on. I wonder how much of his story is actually verified.
David: Again, Affirmative action (in regard to UC admissions) was (supposedly) already illegal in California
The Supreme Court simply reaffirmed/supported what California voters had already done.
However, the UC (and other systems) may now need to reconsider their “backdoor” Affirmative action practices. (But which may not be likely, given that their are no punitive actions to discourage them from “trying” to impose their beliefs on a publicly-owned system.)
CORRECT. What I was showing you was the impact of banning affirmative action on Asian enrollment at UC. So if Asians were systematically harmed by affirmative action, we would expect to see a change in enrollment pre and post. We do not. Do you understand this concept?
Sure, I understand the concept.
So you’re stating that Asians were over-represented prior to the time that Affirmative action was banned? And also, after it was banned?
What timeframe are we talking about, here?
Do you deny that Affirmative action necessarily results in some being denied admission (or a job) based upon immutable personal characteristics? Is that what your claiming the “statistics” show? (If that’s the case, there’s something “wrong” with the statistics.)
That is, unless you believe that enrollments (or jobs) are “unlimited”, and have no selective factors other than skin color. In which case, they would not be “unlimited” in the first place.
Jobs and enrollments at UC for everyone (as long as you’re the “right” skin color, I guess). And every once-in-awhile, sex also comes into play – except when the statistics don’t support the claims.
You might title this entire issue, “when whites are no longer useful in regard to the agenda, but we’re still desperately trying to claim that they are”.
(The reason being that Asians are “off-limits” in regard to the agenda, for now at least.)
And that is why I actually have some respect for the ousted school board member in San Francisco, who said that Asians are using “white supremacy” to get ahead. Which begs the question, why don’t we ALL use “white supremacy” to get ahead? (Whatever THAT means – especially since it’s apparently not limited to “whites”.)
All to filed directly underneath “housing crisis”.
This is a widely popular ruling by SCOTUS.
75% of the country which even includes 55% of Democrats agree with the Supreme Court’s affirmative action decision.
I view it as similar to Critical Race Theory, most people don’t know what affirmative action actually is, they think it’s quotas and they think unqualified people get in over more qualified people. They also don’t know the data overall of who is most helped by affirmative action.
So if the vast majority of the country don’t agree with your views it’s because they ‘don’t get it’!
Got it!
You didn’t make an argument about the court, you cited public opinion.