@BowtiePrincipal As President Obama Tweeted, “Affirmative action was never a complete answer in the drive towards a more just.” But it played a role in the community to society “the chance to show we more than deserved a seat at the table,” as President Obama stated.
There is a saying in the Black community that “Elections have consequences.” On Thursday, June 29, 2023, we learned firsthand the grave reality of this maxim. Indeed, elections have consequences. In a 6-2 vote against Harvard, and a 6-3 vote against UNC, the Supreme Court’s decision in Students for Far Admissions v. President and Fellows of Harvard College and Students for Fair Admissions v. University of North Carolina struck-down race-conscious admissions policies, effectively banning affirmative action on college campuses nationwide. The SFFA’s main argument is that the 14th Amendment’s Equal Rights provisions makes race-conscious admissions policies unconstitutional or illegal.
Chief Justice Roberts argued that “eliminating racial discrimination means eliminating all of it” and “the way to stop discrimination based on race is to stop discriminating on the basis based on race.” In other words, affirmative action beneficial to qualified Black applicants is wrong. He went on to say that “race may never be used as a ‘negative’ and that it may not operate as a stereotype” and that a student’s race “may never be used against him in the admission process.” The 14th Amendment ensured the rights of newly emancipated Blacks who needed “equal protection under the law” because of racial, socioeconomic, and political oppression. Justice Thurgood Marshall wrote, “The Congress that passed the 14th Amendment is the same Congress that passed the 1866 Freedmen’s Bureau Act, which provided many of its benefits only to Negroes.” Chief Justice Roberts and the conservative members of the Supreme Court highjacked the original intent of the 14th Amendment to provide equal protection to marginalized Black people by enacting race-conscious policies and programs to benefit marginalized racial groups.
Chief Justice Roberts and the rest of the conservative members of the court ignored the historical meaning of the 14th Amendment. Instead, they opted to reinterpret its meaning to argue that the Constitution is explicitly against affirmative action and race-conscious policies and programs. This argument is ahistorical as the 14th Amendment never mandated colorblindness. I find it interesting that Chief Justice Roberts did not apply his colorblind interpretation of the 14th Amendment to white legacy students, white athletes, the children of wealthy white donors, and the children of white faculty members at highly selective, prestigious colleges and universities. In other words, Chief Justice Roberts is content to preserve and leave intact the 200-old system that privileged, affluent, wealthy, well-positioned whites like himself.
Chief Justice Robert’s thinking reflects the trend that race-conscious policies are no longer needed because America has moved beyond the racist politics, policies, and practices of the past. In other words, the “legacy of discrimination” that Justice Thurgood Marshall rallied against is no longer a threat. Everyday racism and the acts of fringe white supremacist groups may still be a problem, but the structural racism of the Jim Crow era is now a relic of the past. This is Chief Justice Robert’s colorblind, race-neutral paradigm as he wails against race-conscious policies. He is using his judicial seat in the highest court of the land to pass anti-woke legislation and to push the narrative that whites are victims of affirmative action, which, in truth, is a minor admissions metric in the college admissions process.
Here is where Chief Justice Roberts gets it wrong. The 14th Amendment is not about being color-blind or race-neutral; it is about ending political, economic, social, and educational suppression of people based on their race. This color-blind model for race relations he advocates is ahistorical and divorced from the current reality of racism and racial inequality. The Supreme Court’s decision ignored that racial segregation already exists in higher education, especially at prestigious, highly selective, predominately white colleges and universities.
In a 2023 report titled “Segregation Forever: Private Universities Haven’t Leveraged Race-Conscious Admissions to Increase Diversity. What Now?” published by The Education Trust, race-conscious admissions practices of highly selective colleges and universities were examined. Examining the diversity of enrolled students at the 101 most selective public colleges and universities, The Education Trust noted since 2000, the percentage of Black students decreased at 6 out of 10 of particular public institutions, and only 9% of these colleges enrolled representative numbers of Black students. According to this report, Ivy League colleges and universities were also inaccessible.
Not a single Ivy League institution enrolled a representative share of Black students in 2020, despite affirmative action, despite policy statements with commitments to diversity, despite having the resources and ability to leverage race-conscious admissions to increase the number of Black students on campus. In other words, despite the promise of affirmative action and the use of race-conscious admissions, most public and private colleges and universities still need to diversify their student enrollment. Black students remain underrepresented in the top 100 highly selective, prestigious public and private colleges and universities.
The Supreme Court ignored twice reaffirmed legal precedent and engaged in twisting the 14th Amendment, the 1954 Brown Decision, and Section VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act to ban race-conscious admissions when “race-conscious admissions” have not fully addressed the problem of enrolling a representative number of Black students. But with the end of affirmative action, things are likely to get worse as the result of higher education institutions continuing to white privilege, structural racism, racial inequality, racial inequity, racial bias and stereotypes, and deficit thinking around the intellectual potential and capacity of Black students. Critics of affirmative action contend that it does not benefit Black students. This is called “mismatched theory” and what Justice Scalia used to recommend a “less-advanced school … a slower-track school where they [Black students] do well ….”
This idea that Black students are “overmatched” when attending highly selective schools and will eventually fail to keep up academically is pure racist paternalism. Where is the empirical evidence to substantiate the “mismatch theory”? Research is noted in an article titled “Mismatch and Science Desistance: Failed Arguments Against Affirmative Action”, published by the UCLA Law Review, “that selectivity improves Black probabilities of graduation and helps Blacks more than it helps Whites.” In other words, as stated in the article, “affirmative action policies are positive not only in terms of increasing the number of minorities enrolled in selective institutions but also once there, minorities benefit by having higher probabilities of attaining a bachelor’s degree.” There is zero evidence that Black students are harmed due to academic mismatch. Being “overmatched” helps Black students to achieve.
Ignoring these dynamics or being “blind to them” will not make them disappear. Color-blind paradigms perpetuate structural racism and deficit thinking about Black people’s intellectual potential and capacity. The Supreme Court’s decision to ban racial affirmative action was made while ignoring the factors and experiences that benefit and privilege wealthier White applicants, such as legacy, participation in privileged, elite sports, and “donor babies” or the children of wealthy donors and philanthropists who are given a boost on their admissions application. The Supreme Court is silent on white privilege while focusing exclusively and wrongly on the belief that racial affirmative action discriminates against Asian and White applicants. Asian and white applicants are overrepresented in the student body at highly selective, prestigious public and private colleges and universities.
For example, Every highly selective, prestigious college or university lends extra weight to applicants with parents who graduated from the institution. Keep in mind predominately white colleges and universities have used white privilege for over 200 years to keep higher education predominately white and affluent. For centuries, higher education institutions had “white only” admission policies—policies that excluded Blacks, Asians, Latinx, and Indigenous Native Americans. Why were “legacy” admission preferences that favor the sons and daughters of alumni not a part of the Supreme Court’s decision. One answer:
What about white privilege for white athletes who play elitist sports such as lacrosse, golf, hockey, polo, tennis, crew, fencing, squash, sailing, soccer, and other sports not readily available to many Black students attending public schools? College athletes are primarily white and wealthy—the sons and daughters of socioeconomic and political privilege. Thus, there is bias in the college admissions process towards white applicants from rich families with access to private schools with elitist sports valued by elite colleges and universities. In addition, white applicants with college-level athletic ability are often admitted despite having weaker grades and academic credentials.
What I call “donor babies” is also a white privilege for White applicants of the affluent. Having wealthy parents impacts admissions decisions. The children of wealthy donors who give generously to a college or university are all but guaranteed enrollment, despite lower GPAs, lower test scores, and poorer qualifying credentials.
What about white applicants with parents and relatives employed at highly selective, prestigious colleges and universities? They are privileged as well and receive an admission boost. What racial group is most likely employed at highly selective, prestigious colleges and universities? Whites. Children and family members benefit from white privilege by having family members employed at the institution. The Supreme Court’s ruling failed to address this type of historical racial privilege that gives preferential treatment to whites under the guise of color-blind admission policies.
The Supreme Court got it wrong for several reasons. This decision will lead to fewer Black applicants admitting to highly selective, prestigious public and private universities. In addition, this ruling will reinforce the idea that racism is a relic from the past and that “advantaging” Blacks over Whites and Asians has been remedied by banning affirmative action and continuing the attack to do away with race-conscious policies and programs throughout American society.
Dr. Faisal enjoys a fulfilling spiritual and family life with his wife, Christie, and their daughter Gabrielle. He is passionate about servant leadership and preparing students from underserved communities for college success. The motto “Excellence is Our Norm” summarizes his belief that all students can achieve academic and social success with appropriate investment –not intervention. He has written two books, one on fatherhood and the other on the servant leadership philosophy of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. He is currently finishing a book on the life and legacy of Cornelius L. Henderson, an African American chief design engineer for the Ambassador Bridge and the Detroit-Windsor Tunnels. Dr. Faisal’s hobbies include bike riding and sports, researching African American history; writing for the Michigan Historical Society; collecting vintage college memorabilia and literature; collecting memorabilia from the Negro Leagues and Black Fives era; and visiting museums, book stores, cultural centers, and historical sites.
There is a saying in the Black community that “Elections have consequences.” On Thursday, June 29, 2023, we learned firsthand the grave reality of this maxim. Indeed, elections have consequences. In a 6-2 vote against Harvard, and a 6-3 vote against UNC, the Supreme Court’s decision in Students for Far Admissions v. President and Fellows of Harvard College and Students for Fair Admissions v. University of North Carolina struck-down race-conscious admissions policies, effectively banning affirmative action on college campuses nationwide. The SFFA’s main argument is that the 14th Amendment’s Equal Rights provisions makes race-conscious admissions policies unconstitutional or illegal.
Chief Justice Roberts argued that “eliminating racial discrimination means eliminating all of it” and “the way to stop discrimination based on race is to stop discriminating on the basis based on race.” In other words, affirmative action beneficial to qualified Black applicants is wrong. He went on to say that “race may never be used as a ‘negative’ and that it may not operate as a stereotype” and that a student’s race “may never be used against him in the admission process.” The 14th Amendment ensured the rights of newly emancipated Blacks who needed “equal protection under the law” because of racial, socioeconomic, and political oppression. Justice Thurgood Marshall wrote, “The Congress that passed the 14th Amendment is the same Congress that passed the 1866 Freedmen’s Bureau Act, which provided many of its benefits only to Negroes.” Chief Justice Roberts and the conservative members of the Supreme Court highjacked the original intent of the 14th Amendment to provide equal protection to marginalized Black people by enacting race-conscious policies and programs to benefit marginalized racial groups.
Chief Justice Roberts and the rest of the conservative members of the court ignored the historical meaning of the 14th Amendment. Instead, they opted to reinterpret its meaning to argue that the Constitution is explicitly against affirmative action and race-conscious policies and programs. This argument is ahistorical as the 14th Amendment never mandated colorblindness. I find it interesting that Chief Justice Roberts did not apply his colorblind interpretation of the 14th Amendment to white legacy students, white athletes, the children of wealthy white donors, and the children of white faculty members at highly selective, prestigious colleges and universities. In other words, Chief Justice Roberts is content to preserve and leave intact the 200-old system that privileged, affluent, wealthy, well-positioned whites like himself.
Chief Justice Robert’s thinking reflects the trend that race-conscious policies are no longer needed because America has moved beyond the racist politics, policies, and practices of the past. In other words, the “legacy of discrimination” that Justice Thurgood Marshall rallied against is no longer a threat. Everyday racism and the acts of fringe white supremacist groups may still be a problem, but the structural racism of the Jim Crow era is now a relic of the past. This is Chief Justice Robert’s colorblind, race-neutral paradigm as he wails against race-conscious policies. He is using his judicial seat in the highest court of the land to pass anti-woke legislation and to push the narrative that whites are victims of affirmative action, which, in truth, is a minor admissions metric in the college admissions process.
Here is where Chief Justice Roberts gets it wrong. The 14th Amendment is not about being color-blind or race-neutral; it is about ending political, economic, social, and educational suppression of people based on their race. This color-blind model for race relations he advocates is ahistorical and divorced from the current reality of racism and racial inequality. The Supreme Court’s decision ignored that racial segregation already exists in higher education, especially at prestigious, highly selective, predominately white colleges and universities.
In a 2023 report titled “Segregation Forever: Private Universities Haven’t Leveraged Race-Conscious Admissions to Increase Diversity. What Now?” published by The Education Trust, race-conscious admissions practices of highly selective colleges and universities were examined. Examining the diversity of enrolled students at the 101 most selective public colleges and universities, The Education Trust noted since 2000, the percentage of Black students decreased at 6 out of 10 of particular public institutions, and only 9% of these colleges enrolled representative numbers of Black students. According to this report, Ivy League colleges and universities were also inaccessible.
Not a single Ivy League institution enrolled a representative share of Black students in 2020, despite affirmative action, despite policy statements with commitments to diversity, despite having the resources and ability to leverage race-conscious admissions to increase the number of Black students on campus. In other words, despite the promise of affirmative action and the use of race-conscious admissions, most public and private colleges and universities still need to diversify their student enrollment. Black students remain underrepresented in the top 100 highly selective, prestigious public and private colleges and universities.
The Supreme Court ignored twice reaffirmed legal precedent and engaged in twisting the 14th Amendment, the 1954 Brown Decision, and Section VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act to ban race-conscious admissions when “race-conscious admissions” have not fully addressed the problem of enrolling a representative number of Black students. But with the end of affirmative action, things are likely to get worse as the result of higher education institutions continuing to white privilege, structural racism, racial inequality, racial inequity, racial bias and stereotypes, and deficit thinking around the intellectual potential and capacity of Black students. Critics of affirmative action contend that it does not benefit Black students. This is called “mismatched theory” and what Justice Scalia used to recommend a “less-advanced school … a slower-track school where they [Black students] do well ….”
This idea that Black students are “overmatched” when attending highly selective schools and will eventually fail to keep up academically is pure racist paternalism. Where is the empirical evidence to substantiate the “mismatch theory”? Research is noted in an article titled “Mismatch and Science Desistance: Failed Arguments Against Affirmative Action”, published by the UCLA Law Review, “that selectivity improves Black probabilities of graduation and helps Blacks more than it helps Whites.” In other words, as stated in the article, “affirmative action policies are positive not only in terms of increasing the number of minorities enrolled in selective institutions but also once there, minorities benefit by having higher probabilities of attaining a bachelor’s degree.” There is zero evidence that Black students are harmed due to academic mismatch. Being “overmatched” helps Black students to achieve.
Ignoring these dynamics or being “blind to them” will not make them disappear. Color-blind paradigms perpetuate structural racism and deficit thinking about Black people’s intellectual potential and capacity. The Supreme Court’s decision to ban racial affirmative action was made while ignoring the factors and experiences that benefit and privilege wealthier White applicants, such as legacy, participation in privileged, elite sports, and “donor babies” or the children of wealthy donors and philanthropists who are given a boost on their admissions application. The Supreme Court is silent on white privilege while focusing exclusively and wrongly on the belief that racial affirmative action discriminates against Asian and White applicants. Asian and white applicants are overrepresented in the student body at highly selective, prestigious public and private colleges and universities.
For example, Every highly selective, prestigious college or university lends extra weight to applicants with parents who graduated from the institution. Keep in mind predominately white colleges and universities have used white privilege for over 200 years to keep higher education predominately white and affluent. For centuries, higher education institutions had “white only” admission policies—policies that excluded Blacks, Asians, Latinx, and Indigenous Native Americans. Why were “legacy” admission preferences that favor the sons and daughters of alumni not a part of the Supreme Court’s decision. One answer:
- White privilege.
- The legal protection of white privilege.
- The promotion of a color-blind paradigm that conveniently ignores the lived experiences of Black people.
What about white privilege for white athletes who play elitist sports such as lacrosse, golf, hockey, polo, tennis, crew, fencing, squash, sailing, soccer, and other sports not readily available to many Black students attending public schools? College athletes are primarily white and wealthy—the sons and daughters of socioeconomic and political privilege. Thus, there is bias in the college admissions process towards white applicants from rich families with access to private schools with elitist sports valued by elite colleges and universities. In addition, white applicants with college-level athletic ability are often admitted despite having weaker grades and academic credentials.
What I call “donor babies” is also a white privilege for White applicants of the affluent. Having wealthy parents impacts admissions decisions. The children of wealthy donors who give generously to a college or university are all but guaranteed enrollment, despite lower GPAs, lower test scores, and poorer qualifying credentials.
What about white applicants with parents and relatives employed at highly selective, prestigious colleges and universities? They are privileged as well and receive an admission boost. What racial group is most likely employed at highly selective, prestigious colleges and universities? Whites. Children and family members benefit from white privilege by having family members employed at the institution. The Supreme Court’s ruling failed to address this type of historical racial privilege that gives preferential treatment to whites under the guise of color-blind admission policies.
The Supreme Court got it wrong for several reasons. This decision will lead to fewer Black applicants admitting to highly selective, prestigious public and private universities. In addition, this ruling will reinforce the idea that racism is a relic from the past and that “advantaging” Blacks over Whites and Asians has been remedied by banning affirmative action and continuing the attack to do away with race-conscious policies and programs throughout American society.
Dr. Faisal enjoys a fulfilling spiritual and family life with his wife, Christie, and their daughter Gabrielle. He is passionate about servant leadership and preparing students from underserved communities for college success. The motto “Excellence is Our Norm” summarizes his belief that all students can achieve academic and social success with appropriate investment –not intervention. He has written two books, one on fatherhood and the other on the servant leadership philosophy of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. He is currently finishing a book on the life and legacy of Cornelius L. Henderson, an African American chief design engineer for the Ambassador Bridge and the Detroit-Windsor Tunnels. Dr. Faisal’s hobbies include bike riding and sports, researching African American history; writing for the Michigan Historical Society; collecting vintage college memorabilia and literature; collecting memorabilia from the Negro Leagues and Black Fives era; and visiting museums, book stores, cultural centers, and historical sites.