Right wing rigged Supreme Court takes aim at another liberal bastion of equity
Affirmative action, according to Oxford, is “(in the context of the allocation of resources or employment) the practice or policy of favoring individuals belonging to groups regarded as disadvantaged or subject to discrimination.” While this may appear to be entirely equitable in keeping with the country’s history, the political polarization of America has resulted in affirmative action again being called into question. Is it fair? Should someone’s race be identified as a factor on whether or not they should get a job? Well, the Supreme Court has weighed in on the “unfairness” of affirmative action.
Before discussing the recent legal proceedings and the ban, it’s important to understand why it was implemented in the first place. Its original purpose was to broaden the scope of diversity in jobs and universities. It has focused on historically underrepresented groups in a single area, attempting to counter discrimination prevalent within minorities’ representation in the sense of educational or occupational opportunities. Legally speaking, this was signed into action as part of the Civil Rights Act of 1965 by Lyndon Johnson.
So, the true nature and purpose of affirmative action is obviously not unfair. People who aren’t minorities, however, assume that considering race during hiring runs contrary to fair practice. Rather than simple merit, race and place in society also become part of the hiring protocol. Through an objective lens, this may seem understandable. Why should some get more opportunities based on race, especially within the world of universities? Now, the Supreme Court has responded to the same question.
Recently, the Supreme Court has undergone a radical and unfortunate shift to the right with the induction of Amy Coney-Barrett upsetting any sort of equilibrium. This conservative shift, courtesy of former reality host Donald J. Trump, has already cost the American people their federally protected right to abortion and will now call into question whether affirmative action is constitutional. Both Harvard and the University of North Carolina take race into account on their applications, which has come under attack by detractors. These companion cases could alter the landscape of all major colleges and universities throughout the country, forcing institutes of higher learning to rework their application processes. Like Roe v. Wade, the current court make-up will most likely ring the death knell for this decades-old program of equity.
The Supreme Court first heard the cases Students for Fair Admissions and Inc v. President and Fellows of Harvard College and Students and Students for Fair Admissions and Inc. v. University of North Carolina on October 31, 2022. SCOTUS predicts the ban of the consideration of race in the entire application process to a university. Such institutes have been encouraged to promote ‘race-neutral’ recruitments to increase diversity, but these measures have not had any meaningful impact.
What’s important to understand about affirmative action is the difference between equity and equality. People can be given the same thing, and it may be technically equal, but it is still impossible to achieve the same goal. To explain, think about a 10 foot fence and there are 3 people looking over that fence; one person is 7 feet tall, one person is 6 feet tall, and one person is 3 feet tall. All of the people are given a 5 foot stool to look over the fence, not everyone can see over the fence right? And that applies exactly to affirmative action and the inequality within universities across the country. It appears the Supreme Court stands ready to deny institutions the right to find the right box for the right person, and that seems like the opposite of equity.
by Anika Flores
Published March 17, 2023
Oshkosh West Index Volume 119 Issue VI