Time Is Up — The Institutional Range Weblog

I have researched race-conscious policies in higher education for many years as it was central to my dissertation research 20 years ago. Learning of the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS)’s decision to strike down the use of race as a factor in admissions is no surprise.  From the Clinton Administration to President Biden, this has been a long game.  In 2003, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor placed a sunset clause in the Grutter v. Bollinger decision, stating: “a 25-year horizon, indicating that by 2028, affirmative action will or should no longer be needed” (Green et al., 2014).  The proverbial writing was on the wall.  What will elite public and private universities do now as they espouse diversity, democracy, and the fact that race matters?

SCOTUS has made clear that affirmative action as a race-conscious policy, albeit weak in its effectiveness to benefit American descendants of slaves, is no longer constitutional and its time is up.  The Equal Protection Clause provides Black people and other people of color little-to-no protection in the 21st century.  In terms of race relations, I believe America is regressing.  The country’s government systems have become comfortable knowing that systems of racial discrimination exist but choose not to rectify it.  Furthermore, the decision indicates that military academies are permitted to use race in admissions.  If racial diversity is a compelling interest for the country’s military, it should also be the case among the halls of its elite public and private universities and colleges.  However, the removal of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) offices in universities has signaled that its time is up.

Upon remembering my Princeton University experience, I believe that all of us are struggling to reconcile the twoness of our racial selves and American selves that W.E.B. DuBois described in his 1903 book: The Souls of Black Folk.  The problem of the color line still remains.  It may be called “racial diversity” by another name, “anti-Black racism”, or “racial preferences”, but we, as a country, are still trapped in this racial conflict.

When I consider my twoness, I have many examples to share, but the one I recall is my Princeton University experience in the mid-1980s.  I was the only African American woman admitted to my master’s cohort of 85 students.  I was a Princeton student, but I was also an African American student.  And, this fact made a significant difference in my Princeton experience.  It influenced how I viewed myself and how others viewed and interacted with me.

At the core of this decision “white discrimination or reverse discrimination” violates the moral code.  As such, it requires SCOTUS to balance the scales by removing race as a factor, protecting the racist legacy of the country under the guise of colorblindness.

Given my 30 years of experience doing anti-racism, DEI, and transformation work, in post-secondary education and other sectors, I know that a colorblind approach to racial inequity has always been problematic and ineffective.  My goal is to support organizations to move beyond words and performative gestures and deal with anti-Black racism and other forms of racism directly.  And the starting point of blazing a path toward racial equity is to understand that race-conscious policies and approaches are a cornerstone of getting to the goal.

What do you think about this SCOTUS decision on Affirmative Action?

Let’s share and connect. I’d love to hear your thoughts.

Reference:

Green, D.O., Knight, G. and Green, M.D. (2014). Affirming acts for access and the evolving nature of affirmative action under the Obama administration. In Zamani-Gallaher (Ed.) The Obama Administration and Educational Reform. Advances in education in diverse communities: Research, policy and praxis, Volume 10, (pp. 187-204). Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.

Print this entry