Supreme Court Rejects Affirmative Action in College Admissions
Source for image: The Associated Press / Jose Luis Magana
On June 29, 2023 the Supreme Court of the United States overturned the use of affirmative action in all higher education admissions processes. According to the Court’s 6-3 majority opinion, the explicit consideration of an applicant’s race violates The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. The petitioner of the two cases, Students for Fair Admissions Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College and Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. University of North Carolina, jointly argued that race conscious admissions policies unfairly discriminate against White and Asian American applicants, particularly the latter. Though the claims brought against affirmative action are deceivingly compelling, the harsh reality of overturning affirmative action will create barriers in achieving success through higher education for future students of color.
To date, the purpose of affirmative action in the college admissions process is to ensure that colleges and universities, who are committed to accepting students from a multitude of various backgrounds, can admit a diverse class of incoming students to the school. Yet to the public eye, the murkiness in which race affects admission likelihood into particular institutions has allowed affirmative action naysayers to spin the narrative surrounding the policy.
Since Fisher v. The University of Texas was brought before the Court in 2015, conservative activist Edward Blum has promoted the idea that many universities' race conscious admission processes operate as a zero sum game. According to Blum’s logic, because race is considered in admissions, it has the potential to become the sole determinant in admitting one person and denying another. And although top universities have countered such criticism through the practice of a holistic application review, the seemingly quantifiable nature associated with racial quotas and affirmative action has led to the creation of the nonprofit organization Students for Fair Admissions.
A movement strategically championed by the faces of predominantly Asian American individuals, the Students for Fair Admission nonprofit organization is committed to ending “unfair, unnecessary and unconstitutional” university admissions practices. Not only does this narrative manipulate Asian American experience and testimony, it also highlights the misconception that all Asian Americans are high achievers which molds the monolithic image of the Asian as a model minority in the United States.
But it should be no surprise why Blum has gone to these lengths to rectify this case of purported discrimination against Asian Americans. Evident by his role in defending Abigail Fisher, a White student rejected from the University of Texas, it's clear that his goal is to preserve opportunity for White college applicants. Although Blum has been disguising his own vices by victimizing Asian Americans, his attempt to group Asian Americans and White students together have proven successful.
By taking advantage of the racial fluidity associated with Asian Americans in the United States, Blum has managed to take a class of individuals who are stereotyped as hard working, humble and outspoken and has manipulated them into being the poster child of his movement. By showing others the image of undue harm inflicted onto the racial minority group, he has deceived the minds of many by convincing them that affirmative action harms the potential for merit-based scholarship in higher education institutions. Yet, in reality, by fighting against affirmative action policies Blum is only protecting the interests and opportunity of White college applicants.
Since California outlawed affirmative Action policies in 1996, Black and Hispanic acceptance and attendance rates in schools such as the University of California Berkeley and the University of California Los Angeles have significantly decreased. With a new ban on affirmative action, similar trends will likely occur nationwide. Particularly at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, a school that claims to value diversity, such a loss would be detrimental to the educational value associated with the institution.
In an email sent at the end of the 2023 spring semester, UNC Chancellor Kevin Guskiewicz reminded students and staff of what it means to have a degree from Carolina.
“Pablo Friedmann, a Robertson scholar of the Class of 2009, quoted UNC President Bill Friday: ‘A million poor North Carolinians pay taxes to subsidize your education. What are you going to do to pay them back?’ ”
Guskiewicz went on to say in the email, “A Carolina degree represents our obligation to pay forward that investment.”
When I think about the value of higher education, I think about the ways in which Tar Heels from many walks of life have shaped and challenged my perspectives, which has changed me for the better. While higher education involves refining critical thinking and writing skills, the most meaningful part of my college education has come from interactions with others – notably, from individuals who do not look like me, were not raised in the same way as me, and who do not share the same socioeconomic background as myself. The diverse environment UNC provides allowed me to witness the infinite number of ways in which the quality of life improves when different types of people learn to live and coexist amongst one another.
The rejection of affirmative action not only threatens to take away that experience from others, but it limits who can potentially have access to higher education at all. As a North Carolinian who is privileged to have a taxpayer-subsidized college tuition-rate, I cringe at the fact that impoverished parents help pay for an education their children may never be able to experience.
The Supreme Court ruling goes deeper than “saving” Asian American students from racial discrimination. The Court’s decision that race should not have a role in differentiating students' unique qualities negates this country’s history of American slavery, governmental mistreatment of minority groups who have immigrated into the country, and the current reality of systemic racial oppression. Because colleges largely consider grades and admission test scores when granting applicants acceptance into institutions, systemic advantages are inherent for select individuals when factors such as generational wealth and financial capability affect students’ ability to achieve academically.
And it’s most clear by the Court’s decision to protect legacy-admits that rejecting affirmative action is not about protecting merit based scholarship. This was a conservative sleight of hand maneuver to diminish opportunities for disadvantaged Black and brown students in this country.
So what does it mean to have a Carolina degree if paying it forward to all future North Carolinians is no longer possible? And what does it mean to have publicly funded universities across the nation if not all of the contributors can benefit from the institutions equitably?
Although the Court has made it clear that race should not be a relevant factor in college admissions, it is undeniable that diversity stems from racial identity and ethnic culture. While students may no longer be able to explicitly state their race on their college applications, it does not diminish the unique role race plays in shaping the lives of every American and creating diversity within our communities.