A World Without Affirmative ActionWe need creative thinking and real problem solving to address inequality in education.
Harvey Silverglate
16 Jan 2023
The recent tumult surrounding the Supreme Court’s ruling on abortion reminds us that the American body politic is closely and intensively divided on many contentious political, social, religious, cultural, and economic issues. One of those issues is the question of whether affirmative action, particularly in college admissions, passes constitutional muster.
A group that calls itself “Students for Fair Admissions” (SFFA) brought a lawsuit against Harvard on November 17th, 2014 in Boston’s federal district court, alleging that the college’s admittedly race-conscious admissions policies and practices (“affirmative action”) violate federal civil rights laws because they discriminate against Asian-Americans. In 2019, the United States District Court for Massachusetts ruled that Harvard’s race-conscious admissions program did not intentionally discriminate against Asian-Americans and concluded that Harvard had no workable race-neutral alternative that would give its student body some degree of racial diversity. The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed this decision in 2020.
In February 2021, SFFA sought Supreme Court review. The high court on January 24th of last year agreed to review the First Circuit’s ruling. A decision by the conservative-leaning high court would have serious implications for admissions policies, ending or severely constraining affirmative action programs across the country. Because of this, the Biden administration has urged the Court to reject the review.
SFFA also petitioned the Supreme Court to review affirmative action in the public sector. (Harvard is a private university.) SFFA had sued the University of North Carolina in November 2014. The high court agreed to review this ruling as well and consolidated it with the Harvard case. In October 2022 the high court heard oral arguments, and the public will soon learn the outcome.
Opponents of racial preferences have long claimed that affirmative action, by its very nature, violates the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment because it treats individual applicants differently based solely on their membership in a racial demographic category. Further, since Harvard and UNC, as well as nearly every other college and university, accept federal funds, critics of affirmative action claim that both public and private colleges violate equal protection by engaging in racial preferences.
* * *
To implement educational reforms conducive to the improvement of our educational system, I am currently conducting a campaign to appear, as a petition candidate, on the ballot for the upcoming election of members of the Harvard Board of Overseers. One of my aims is to wean Harvard College off its reliance on affirmative action once the High Court has spoken, and to encourage college students to play a crucial role in the education of disadvantaged children. This is in addition to my long-held goal of dismissing 95 percent of college administrators, who play no useful role and are largely responsible for speech codes and the kangaroo courts that enforce them, resulting in sky-high tuitions that make it impossible for middle-class families to finances their kids’ educations without massive financial assistance or crippling loans.
Affirmative action for too long has acted as a crutch that discouraged creative thinking and real problem solving. The Supreme Court seems likely to kick out that crutch. Our society must be ready.
* * *
Source:
https://quillette.com/2023/01/16/a-world-beyond-affirmative-action/
