Americans of intellectual integrity and good will on either side of this crucial debate recognize that affirmative action was never intended to be a permanent solution to racial inequality in educational opportunities.
Affirmative action did not come with a stamped expiration date, at least until June 29, 2023. But it did dawn in 1961 with a conceptual acknowledgement that it would not last forever, hopefully because it would not be necessary forever.
The idea was to fix—not just to eternally manage—a fundamental societal inequity. Only a deeply disingenuous or hopelessly naïve observer would claim that the problem has now been fixed. It has not.
So, in my mind that makes Thursday’s 6-3 SCOTUS decision striking down affirmative action at best premature, and at worst a tragic unwinding of progress previously achieved.
Sounds like a complex and nuanced issue? That’s because it is. We err when we attempt to frame it in binary and—yes—“black and white” terms. We Americans are not very good at avoiding binary and “black and white” thinking. That would account for the anti-polar “morning after” reactions that have quickly grown hotter than Cotulla.
Hooray for our side. Boo you.
The first thing we should all attempt is to understand the other side’s argument, because both sides present compelling cases. Yes, there IS something that rightly makes us uncomfortable about what amounts to racial quotas. Yet there can be no honest denial that generations and centuries of racial discrimination and suppression continue to leave many aspiring students of color at an often severe competitive disadvantage.
It’s telling that both sides base their positions on the principle of equality under the law. Neither side is incorrect in taking that stance. Both sides claim to seek “fairness.” They simply frame and define the term differently.
The fact is that racial discrimination has not impacted every black or brown individual applicant equally. Yes, all have been historically impeded in one way or another, but not all have been damaged to the same degree. Simply checking a box on a college application marked “race” does not even attempt to address those different experiences.
Resulting numerical quotas are even more inadequate and sometimes dehumanizing.
Deep breath time. All that got struck down Thursday were box-checking and cold racial quotas, neither of which I can honestly defend.
The salient question is not, “What is your race?” It’s “How and in what ways—if any—has your race impacted your individual life journey. Why? And show your work.”
Applicants remain free and are encouraged to answer those questions in their application essays, which frequently reflect intellectual achievement and potential to a much greater and accurate degree than do high school grades and standardized test scores.
The sky need not fall. Legitimate personal disadvantage can and must continue to be addressed and corrected in the admissions processes.
Yes. Societal racial discrimination has created generations of socio-economic suffering. But ultimately it is now those resulting socio-economic gaps—and not mere pigmentation—that drive educational disparities. Admissions boards can still take economic and educational hardships into account.
In the hour following the announcement of the SCOTUS decision, I heard a network tv analyst say, “Today’s ruling almost guarantees that we will have less diversity on college campuses going forward.”
Why? That need not be the case. That must not be the case.
Paraphrasing JFK’s famous 1962 “moon speech” at Rice Stadium: “We seek equality of opportunity for every American citizen, not because it’s easy but because it’s hard.”
First, we must acknowledge that it’s hard. It’s really, really hard. That’s no reason to quit.
