U.S. Supreme Court ended today affirmative action or race-based preferences in college admissions, saying the practice violated the 14th Amendment Equal Protection Clause. Students for Fair Admissions led by conservative activist Edward Blum argued that University of North Carolina and Harvard University race-based preferences violated the Equal Protection Clause, leaving other applicants unfairly discriminated against. Ruling 6 to 3, the Supreme Court fell along typical lines with Associate Justices Kagan, Sotomayor and Jackson dissenting, insisting that affirmative action was necessary to reverse centuries of White privilege. Today’s 6 to 3 ruling, written by Chief Justice John Roberts, overturns 2003 Grutter v. Bollinger holding that the University of Michigan Law School could apply race-based preferences in law school admissions.
Former University of California Regent Ward Connerly sponsored 2003 Prop. 54 banning affirmative action in California public colleges, including the University of California and California State University. Affirmative action was supposed to end segregation California college admissions. Advocates like Supreme Court Associate Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, argue that a history of discrimination against African Americans counts, attesting to the validity of giving race-based preferences. More recent advocates of Nicole Hannah Jones 1619 Project suggest that the history of slavery and its lingering after-effects requires special civil rights protections to level the playing field, arguing for race-based preferences. Jackson knows she most likely would not have attended Harvard Law School without affirmative action.
Connerly’s objection to affirmative action stemmed from his belief in U.S. meritocracy, where, regardless of skin color, objective standards, like grades and test scores, should blindly determine admissions to the nation’s colleges and universities. Today’s reparations movement stems from the 1619 Project that blames discrepancies in African American socioeconomic status on a history of slavery in the United States. Whether African American achievement is linked at all to slavery as Nicole Hannah Jones says is anyone’s guess. Connerly would disagree, that there’s no link at all. Former Housing and Urban Development Secretary Dr. Ben Carson rejects Race-based preferences. His 2003 autobiography “Gifted Hands” tells his story rising from Detroit’s Eight-Mile ghetto to become one of the nation’s premier neurosurgeons. Carson believes the 1964 Civil Rights law paved the way.
Today’s ruling has no practical effect on college admissions since colleges and universities can rely 0global admissions process where counselors take a holistic approach in admissions decisions. Pro-reparation activists will take to the streets to protest what they see as racism on the U.S. Supreme Court. When it comes to ending 2003 Grutter v. Bollinger, civil rights advocates see it as setback for race relations, already claiming there’s no level playing field for Blacks and other minorities. Associate Justice Clarence Thomas wrote under the 14 the Amendment, “the color of a person’s skin is irrelevant to that individual’s equal status as citizen of this nation,” antagonizing the 1619 Project community. Nicole Hannah Jones gave African Americans a stronger case to argue that the lingering effects of slavery continue to impact the livelihood and status of African Americans.
When it comes to arguing the Constitution, 1619 Project advocates don’t care about a Constitution written by affluent White men, primarily for a White society regardless the history of civil rights legislation before and after 1954 Brown v. Board of Education, the landmark Supreme Court ruling reversing 1896 Plessy v. Ferguson, holding that separate but equal was the standard for assuring equal protection under the law. Supreme Court ruled in Brown v. Board of Education that the government, in providing public education, must make an effort to integrate public schools, overturning Plessy v. Ferguson’s separate-but-equal standard. Today’s Supreme Court ruling overturning Grutter v. Bollinger prohibits public and private institutions from using race-based preferences.
Protests have already begun by civil rights advocates accusing the conservative court of reverting back to Plessy v. Ferguson, or to a racist approach to school admissions. Connerly and Carson would argue that race-based preferences have no place in a meritocracy, where achievement is based on objective standards like grades and test scores. Writing for the minority, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson gave the new 1619 Project analysis of today’s ruling. “And having so detached from this country’s actual past and present experiences, the court has no been lured into interfering wit the critical work that UNC and other institutions of higher learning are doing to solve America’s real-world problems,” said Brown Jackson. Brown Jackson hints at White privilege continuing to rob Blacks of a level playing field, requiring Blacks to continue affirmative action to end injustice.
About the Author
John M. Curtis writes politically neutral commentary analyzing spin in national and global news. He’s editor of OnlineColumnist.com and author of Dodging The Bullet and Operation Charisma.
