Commentary: Straddling the Fine Line on Racial Equity
Last month’s Supreme Court ruling on affirmative action in university admissions underscores the importance of a nuanced response—not a robotic reaction based on staunch ideological fault lines.
On June 29, the Supreme Court momentously ruled against the continued use of race-based affirmative action in college admissions, with 6-3 vote pitting six conservatives against three liberal judges. The ruling has been condemned by cynics on both sides of the ideological divide as politicized and predictable.
The Court came down against the use of race as a determinant of college admissions. It held that the admissions programs used by the University of North Carolina and Harvard College violate the Constitution’s equal protection clause, which bars racial discrimination by government entities. Writing for the majority, Chief Justice Roberts explained that race can be considered only to allow applicants to explain how their race influenced their character in ways that would strengthen their candidacy and enable them to contribute to campus enrichment and diversity. In short, universities must consider students based on their individual experiences, not on their race.
The ruling overrules the Court’s 2003 ruling in Grutter v. Bollinger, in which it upheld the University of Michigan Law School’s consideration of race “as one factor among many, in an effort to assemble a student body that is diverse in ways broader than race.” There is no denying that race consideration was and can be a legitimate factor in building a pathway to advancement in college and the workplace, and to a better life; but it cannot prevail as a deciding formula indefinitely.
Even in the Grutter ruling, twenty years back, Justice O’Connor, writing for the court, had stated that “the requirement that all race-conscious admissions programs have a termination point assures all citizens that the deviation from the norm of equal treatment of all racial and ethnic groups is a temporary matter, a measure taken in the service of the goal of equality itself.”She added further: “It would be a sad day indeed, were America to become a quota-ridden society, with each identifiable minority assigned proportional representation in every desirable walk of life. But that is not the rationale for programs of preferential treatment; the acid test of their justification will be their efficacy in eliminating the need for any racial or ethnic preferences at all.”
Through its current ruling, the court is merely echoing and reinforcing the commitment to race-blind admissions and asking college admission processes to stop indefinitely using race as the overriding determinant of student admission.
The court’s ruling has been received with predictable partisanship. President Biden opted to describe the court as “not normal,” while openly challenging the ruling as “not the final word” on race-conscious admissions. Vice President Kamala Harris said the Supreme Court ruling “rolls back long-established precedent and will make it more difficult for students from underrepresented backgrounds to have access to opportunities that will help them fulfill their full potential” claiming that it would “impact our country for decades to come.”
Conservatives, equally vociferously, have welcomed the ruling along with Asian American and white student groups that had joined to petition the court for equal protection.
Indian American community could be expected to celebrate the ruling as one that levels the field for Asian American and white college aspirants. But here too, politics dictates how Indian leaders, for instance, view the ruling. Claiming the Supreme Court was doing a “terrible disservice” to the future leaders of the country in a multi-ethnic and multiracial democracy,” Representative Ro Khanna predicted that the decision “would not just harm Black and Latino students but also White and Asian-American students who would be deprived of an opportunity to understand their own country.” Representative Pramila Jayapal termed it a “terrible ruling” saying that “Ensuring that people from all corners of this country are represented at colleges and universities is part of what makes America so unique, and this decision will hurt communities of color and result in a loss in diversity of thought in education.” Adding that the groups hurt by Thursday’s decision included low-income students and those facing systemic barriers to educational opportunities, she noted, “Affirmative action supports their paths to a quality education and economic mobility, but now, college access will be more limited to the wealthy few.”
Except that the ruling conveys exactly the opposite of what is being predicted—it is certainly neither denying nor overruling the value of diversity along race, class or gender in enriching campus life. Moreover, it accepts that an individual’s life’s course and struggles to overcome the odds including race are okay to use in determining admission eligibility, but it does not support a blanket use of a candidate’s skin color and race.
In contrast to democrats, conservative Indian leaders lauded the ruling. Republican presidential contender Nikki Haley welcomed the verdict as a re-affirmation of freedom and opportunity—the long-held values for which the world admires America. “Picking winners and losers based on race is fundamentally wrong. This decision will help every student—no matter their background—have a better opportunity to achieve the American dream,” she tweeted.
Hailing the verdict Vivek Ramaswamy—another presidential contender—described affirmative action as “the single greatest form of institutional racism” in the U.S. Championing a long-held belief that “meritocracy and equity” are fundamentally incompatible, he noted how “top companies now regularly disfavor qualified applicants who happen to be white or Asian, which spawns resentment and condescension toward black and Hispanic hires. Everyone loses in the end. Time to restore colorblind meritocracy once and for all.” Tying it deftly to his campaign, he promised, if elected, to end race as a criterion in “every sphere of American life,” including repealing an executive order that mandated race-based hiring preferences for federal contractors.
Among black and other minorities, likewise, the ideological divide prevails. The distinguished Obama couple expressed their unhappiness with the ruling with Obama saying affirmative action allowed generations of students to “prove we belonged” and to show that “we more than deserved a seat at the table,” while Michelle Obama found it heartbreaking for young people who are “wondering what their future holds” after the decision. In contrast, Republican presidential contender Tim Scott—a quintessential underprivileged Black kid who made it to the Senate with his own sweat and merit—condemned Obamas and others on the left for pushing lies “from the pit of hell” about opportunity in America. Welcoming the ruling, he noted that the Supreme Court decision to eliminate race-based admissions helps citizens (citing Martin Luther King) to be “judged by the content of our character, not the color of our skin.”
In empathizing with the heartbreak and confusion of the young about their future, Michelle Obama evidently had only one or some races in mind, but not Asian Americans and whites—which is precisely the point well-made by Justice Thomas when he asserted, “Every time the government uses racial criteria to bring the races together, someone gets excluded and the person excluded suffers an injury solely because of his or her race.”
Among Asian American and white students aspiring to enter college who directly benefit from the ruling, the divide continues along political leaning but also according to age. The upcoming generation of younger aspirants, one suspects, are less likely to oppose race as a determinant. Defined by wokeness, they seem more inclined to not only support but also live out the principles of diversity, inclusion, and equity. For them, a world that ends legacy but benefits all equally is the goal. The wheel likely will turn again with their children seeking to build yet another world different from the woke and green utopia they are advocating.
Neera Kuckreja Sohoni holds a master’s degree in history and a PhD in economics. Her articles have been published in leading newspapers in the U.S. and India.
Enjoyed reading Khabar magazine? Subscribe to Khabar and get a full digital copy of this Indian-American community magazine.
