Since the 1960s, affirmative actions policies have been used in college admissions to provide educational opportunities for underrepresented groups to counteract past discrimination. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on June 29, 2023 that affirmative actions based on race would be eliminated at Harvard University and University of North Carolina. This effectively ended affirmative policies in colleges and universities throughout the country. Our country is grappling with the impact of this decision on admissions policies and diversity and inclusion. It also impacts the pipeline for post-graduate success. What was the source of this decision, and what are our next steps?
Ralph Richard Banks, Director of the Stanford Center for Racial Justice, held “Classes Without Quizzes”, a session to answer many questions that arise in a world post-affirmative actions. Banks explained three main reasons for the Supreme Court decision in a room full of Stanford alumni and affiliates. He explained that, in recent years the Court had become increasingly conservative, leaving consequential decisions to a right-leaning majority that aims to reverse progressive decisions of the past. The relationship between race, disadvantage, and prosperity has weakened over time. This may be a sign of greater prosperity for people who are color, and less need for policies and programs based on race. He also suggested that college’s importance has changed. Students are now forced to compete in a highly competitive admissions process, which puts factors such as race under scrutiny. This increased attention led to the Supreme Court reexamining affirmative action policies.
Banks explained that these factors all point to the major conflict in American culture with regards to race: Should Americans be anti-racist or colorblind? While anti-racism aims to combat racial bias, colorblindness does not take race into consideration. Both, however, have the same ultimate goal, which is to promote racial equalitarian, depending on their context. The clash of these two ideals is striking in the Supreme Court. Clarence Thomas, in his concurring opinions, defended Students for Fair Admissions’ decision by defending the originalist interpretation of Constitution. He claimed that the Equal Protection Clause had been written with a colorblind intention. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, on the other hand wrote a history-based anti-racist dissent by arguing that our country has never been “colorblind”. Instead, she suggested race-based disparities persist in opportunities and that striking down affirmative actions is contrary to the Equal Protection Clause promise.
Banks says that despite the constant controversy over these approaches to race, law and justice, we should resist the temptation to take sides. Banks says that colorblindness can be beneficial, but in a country with a history of racism, the importance of an anti-racist approach cannot be understated. Banks suggests that we answer the question of how to create equal opportunities for all people, rather than tackling it from two opposing angles. We are all involved in finding a resolution through this lens.
The Supreme Court’s ruling has had a ripple effect on institutions, and it is arguably affecting more than just higher education. Banks points out that the Supreme Court’s decision may impact policies and programs promoting diversity, equity and inclusion that help people of color succeed, like those that provide grants to Black-owned business. Race-based scholarship programs, educational programs for students who are underrepresented, and diversity-driven policies in the workplace all face uncertainty today. Recently, military academies that were excluded from the Students for Fair Admissions ruling have come under fire. West Point is facing a lawsuit claiming that the Supreme Court ruling striking down affirmative actions in civilian colleges also applies to military academies.
The decision is not only about what it prohibits. Banks explains that the Court decision does not prohibit students from writing in their personal statement about their race. He notes that universities are not prohibited from taking into account the tribal affiliation of Native American applicants. This is a status political and not racial. Other factors, such as legacy and athletic status, may be eliminated in the future. However, this seems unlikely at the moment. Overall, there are many options being explored to ensure diversity and equal opportunities remain goals in higher education.
Banks concluded the discussion by going beyond admissions and addressing more important questions about our entire education system. Banks believes that the Court’s ruling reveals an even broader issue. Higher education in the U.S. has never been more stratified in terms of class and race. This system has led to unequal outcomes that have a significant impact on the wellbeing of students. Freshmen arrive at campus “depleted and overjoyed” after the struggle they had to fight to gain admission. The consequences of that battle have a negative impact on student mental health, as well as their access to equal opportunities. Banks concluded by asking the audience to think of better ways to tackle higher education. The future of the nation depends on this.