The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that race-conscious admissions programs at Harvard and the University of North Carolina are unconstitutional, once again demonstrating this court’s complete disregard of stare decisis as they overturned decades of precedent and three previous SCOTUS decisions that ruled the exact opposite way.
I am a product of affirmative action. I am the perfect affirmative action baby. I am Puerto Rican, born and raised in the south Bronx. My test scores were not comparable to my colleagues at Princeton and Yale. Not so far off so that I wasn't able to succeed at those institutions.
___Sonia Sotomayor
Chief Justice John G. Roberts writing for the conservative members in the majority:
“The student must be treated based on his or her experiences as an individual—not on the basis of race,” Roberts wrote. “Many universities have for too long done just the opposite. And in doing so, they have concluded, wrongly, that the touchstone of an individual’s identity is not challenges bested, skills built, or lessons learned but the color of their skin. Our constitutional history does not tolerate that choice.”
Justice Samuel Alito:
“I thought that the whole purpose of affirmative action was to help students who come from underprivileged backgrounds, but you make a very different argument that I don’t think I’ve ever seen before. The top 10 percent plan admits lots of Hispanics and a fair number of African Americans. But you say, ‘well, it’s – it’s faulty, because it doesn’t admit enough African Americans and Hispanics who come from privileged backgrounds.’ And you specifically have the example of the child of successful [minority] professionals in Dallas. Now, that’s your argument?
If you have an applicant whose parents are – let’s say one of them is a partner in your law firm in Texas, another one is a corporate lawyer. They have income that puts them in the top 1 percent of earners in the country, and the parents both have graduate degrees. They deserve a leg-up against, let’s say, an Asian or a white applicant whose parents are absolutely average in terms of education and income?”
Mrs. Obama’s Statement:
Back in college, I was one of the few Black students on my campus, and I was proud of getting into such a respected school. I knew I’d worked hard for it. But still, I sometimes wondered if people thought I got there because of affirmative action. It was a shadow that students like me couldn’t shake, whether those doubts came from the outside or inside our own minds.
But the fact is this: I belonged. And semester after semester, decade after decade, for more than half a century, countless students like me showed they belonged, too. It wasn’t just the kids of color who benefitted, either. Every student who heard a perspective they might not have encountered, who had an assumption challenged, who had their minds and their hearts opened gained a lot as well. It wasn’t perfect, but there’s no doubt that it helped offer new ladders of opportunity for those who, throughout our history, have too often been denied a chance to show how fast they can climb.
Of course, students on my campus and countless others across the country were — and continue to be — granted special consideration for admissions. Some have parents who graduated from the same school. Others have families who can afford coaches to help them run faster or hit a ball harder. Others go to high schools with lavish resources for tutors and extensive standardized test prep that help them score higher on college entrance exams. We don’t usually question if those students belong. So often, we just accept that money, power, and privilege are perfectly justifiable forms of affirmative action, while kids growing up like I did are expected to compete when the ground is anything but level.
So today, my heart breaks for any young person out there who’s wondering what their future holds —
and what kinds of chances will be open to them. And while I know the strength and grit that lies inside kids who have always had to sweat a little more to climb the same ladders, I hope and I pray that the rest of us are willing to sweat a little, too. Today is a reminder that we’ve got to do the work not just to enact policies that reflect our values of equity and fairness, but to truly make those values real in all of our schools, workplaces, and neighborhoods.
Affirmative action was never a complete answer in the drive towards a more just society. But for generations of students who had been systematically excluded from most of America’s key institutions–it gave us the chance to show we more than deserved a seat at the table. In the wake of the Supreme Court’s recent decision, it’s time to redouble our efforts. So, if you’re looking for ways to help right now, here are some organizations doing important work:
I have kids with ADHD, which drastically affected their schooling, with one needing accommodations like extra time to finish tests. So many times I was told that I was trying to give my kid an advantage. Those neurotypical people never understood the struggles my kid had in keeping things on the rails.
I realize my example is imperfect. The majority opinion REFUSES to recognize the struggles minority students have had to even be considered for admission to schools like Harvard and UNC, which could damn sure benefit from the different perspectives of minority students. I noticed that Roberts, et. al. did not mention such policies as legacy students, who often get in regardless of their resumes. Privilege marches on. George W. comes to mind.
Those who were complaining about you were the ones most likely doing the abusing of the system that allowed your kid the extra time. It's a well-known tactic among the "over-strivers."
it sure is...a very old trick. very, very easy to accomplish. my oft-mentioned best friend has nieces who are bright, wealthy triplets, all three of them completely neurotypical, who got themselves relieved of test time limits (in no way legitimately) by the time they were ten.
kids talk to each other, which is a phenomenon teachers and the teacher adjacent people around them don't (or don't dare) ever want to fuck with.
Thank you for remembering to include anyone with ADHD as part of a minority group. My concern after this decision is knowing that so much in the way of accommodations and adaptations that have been made for special needs students and anyone with a disability came about because of civil rights legislation. Will they attack those next? Their reasoning seems to leave the door open!
Thank you TC and Fern. Will this decision achieve the reversal the six justices expect it to, the death of Affirmative Action or will it be reborn, like the bastard child of right-achieved, never-denied? Taking away it's legal protection by precedent does not take away the right to equality of opportunity, I think. There are at least a couple or three generations of the Obamas and Sotomayors and Jacksons et al who have risen above the place SCOTUS Thomas' would have returned them to who won't leave their brothers and sisters and baby cousins behind. They have numbers and allies and standing and wealth and power and, I do not think for a moment they will not use the powers of their position to carry on, but never call it out by name, Affirmative Action. TC's examples at the end of his post today suggests as much to me and Fern's inclusion of Mr Obama's list of resources implies, I think, proof that the Affirmative Action intent, in earlier Brown etc rulings, is established. It need not be conceded or turned back. By-other-means it will be continued as a right. Never named as such, but always going on. I rather hope that a new coalition is born from this ruling (and right of women's choice ruled against by this same court) that includes the many who are denied opportunities by virtue of some stigma or systemic bias that places them beyond the rungs of opportinity.
Hello Fred. Yes, I think there is a strong mixture of us in the US -- in the legal community, entertainment, arts, sports, science, teachers, doctors, nurses, journalists;, in the service industry and technology...and there are so many more to name. Another angle is that this court has weakened the right's prestige and control. The six conservative justices have shrunk and a few exposed their greed to ridicule. I also think of the Bidens and Blinkens; Jacksons and Austins : Beyoncés, Swifts, Legends, Keys and Partons; LeBron James and Serena Williams; the Obamas, Hillary Clinton, along with the people that we know, like and trust from the pharmacist and store keeper to the clerk and waitress as links in our chain. More of us know what we are up against and what we can delivery together.
I remember the iconic picture of two babies walking hand-in-hand, a paen to equality back in the day. All could be possible, for progressives. All is as it should be in God's world, for conservatives. Those two babies are now grandfather's or great grandfather's who stand shoulder to shoulder to should to shoulder, a strong front blocking the past while opening the future. Maybe a quiet wave of the US you know. They deliver. Not just hope or plead. You might be right: the rights prestige and control is coming to be in the hand of the great grandchildren of affirmative action, lower-case.
I expect the RW 6 will also go after Brown v. Board of Education. (After all, they've decided that discrimination is OK, as decided by their Hobby Lobby & (theoretical) web site decision.)
Interesting the white frat boys in the senate who graduated from Ivy League schools appear to be dumber than what their high school transcripts indicated!
I don't assume that white elected reps who attended Ivy League schools had high quality transcripts, while some may have; how many of them are the heirs of rich families who made generous donations and or legacy students.?
today is hardly the first day that we've been exposed to the fact that there's ALWAYS been affirmative action for the ones who've never spent a minute worrying about landing on their feet, whatever they do.
forgive me if I've told this story before, but I had a great history teacher, Bernie Zelechow, my first term at CCNY, who'd gone to CCNY but did his graduate work at Harvard. he was a famous prof's TA and was disturbed by reading some subliterate papers he had to grade. the professor looked at some of these papers and his eyebrows raised a few times and he gave what Bernie said was a tight smile and said that if he got subliterate papers from people whose names were on the buildings, his job was to stop reading and give a "gentleman's C." at Harvard, the job's not so difficult because most of those names go back to the Mayflower and the Massachusetts Bay Colony folks. you know: Cabot, Adams, Quincy, Lowell, Wigglesworth et al.
my best friend is a Harvard guy and said the main thing he learned there was that a lot of guys had serious head starts, so he'd better get to work. and he said that Reuben Brower's famous "Hum Six" taught him how to read, even though he was one of about two hundred students in the lecture hall and never exchanged two words with Brower. and btw, tuition at Harvard back then was about $3,000 a year, so very few middle-class kids had to take out any loans.
last week, I watched that excellent Frontline documentary about the Nightmare Thomas Couple. I recommend it. it seems that when Thomas couldn't get interviewed by all the white shoe firms he applied to, he decided that it was because there was an invisible asterisk after his name that said "Affirmative Action...Don't Hire." an old "friend" of his who'd known him at Holy Cross said that this was a ridiculous interpretation of why he wasn't interviewed. this guy (who's also Black) said that it was obviously much more due to the longtime institutionalized racism that certainly held sway in the early '70s. it might seem like they both amount to the same thing, but that small difference is enormous.
I am reminded of a National Lampoon classic on "the great Jewish presidents." It said all of them were Jewish. And when it got to Nixon, it said Nixon was part of that group of people who are self-loathing. He may well have been self-loathing, actually. But I'm pretty sure it describes Thomas.
Yeah, it is as bad as "Plessy v Ferguson" - because 125 years after Plessy, we know better; in our hearts we know better; with 125 years of new and better discoveries about the human condition, we know better. We suspected this was coming, but it is still a dark day..... I am pissed.....
“The student must be treated based on his or her experiences as an individual—not on the basis of race,” Roberts wrote. And, pray tell, why would this not apply equally to legacy students, many of whom get in due to privilege but may be less, perhaps far less, capable yet they take up a space that really should (in my opinion) be available to an applicant with far greater capabilities but who may not make the cut because too many slots were taken up by possibly-mediocre legacy student.
I just got the inspiration for doing a fake college essay from a not-too-smart Mayflower descendant. I'll probably forget by tomorrow. it could be pretty funny, though.
The decision was red meat for the federalist six redneck right wing creatures! ‘Can’t put lipstick on a pig’ declared in a dissenting opinion! How scathing!
It seems to me a simple message that's consistent with the right wing's general MO. "You aren't getting into the club because we're pulling up the bridge over the moat. Deal with the crocodiles." It's a message from elites who think the more elite, their recently disclosed benefactors, won't do the same to them--eventually--because they're just not the right stuff because they draw a paycheck. So de'classe'.
the only thing I find surprising is that Roberts actually allowed a little wiggle room; he's always been a little chickenshit.
at least they didn't go for that insane "independent state legislatures" thing. but it's a rogue court so it's gonna do rogue shit. I was disappointed with Biden's lack of a solution and refusal to entertain backing any change. I agree with him (right now, at any rate) is that just adding justices can make SCOTUS even more of a political deal. and (again, right now, but I'm open to any suggestions at all--listen to me being God) I think regular term limits might be a better idea. these lifetime appointment things are scary as fuck
to change the subject (as if that's easy), I was blown away by Fintan O'Toole's magnificent takedown of that worthless, lying, pseudo-religious piece of human waste Mike Pence in the latest issue of the NYRB. I'm posting the link and praying there's no paywall.
Biden's not wrong. He has his "finger on the pulse" better than you or I do. The proposals for term limits (18 years) and imposition of ethics rules won't go as far as you or I would go, but they're right in the middle of where the public is, and will have a good effect.
I am a product of affirmative action. I am the perfect affirmative action baby. I am Puerto Rican, born and raised in the south Bronx. My test scores were not comparable to my colleagues at Princeton and Yale. Not so far off so that I wasn't able to succeed at those institutions.
___Sonia Sotomayor
Chief Justice John G. Roberts writing for the conservative members in the majority:
“The student must be treated based on his or her experiences as an individual—not on the basis of race,” Roberts wrote. “Many universities have for too long done just the opposite. And in doing so, they have concluded, wrongly, that the touchstone of an individual’s identity is not challenges bested, skills built, or lessons learned but the color of their skin. Our constitutional history does not tolerate that choice.”
Justice Samuel Alito:
“I thought that the whole purpose of affirmative action was to help students who come from underprivileged backgrounds, but you make a very different argument that I don’t think I’ve ever seen before. The top 10 percent plan admits lots of Hispanics and a fair number of African Americans. But you say, ‘well, it’s – it’s faulty, because it doesn’t admit enough African Americans and Hispanics who come from privileged backgrounds.’ And you specifically have the example of the child of successful [minority] professionals in Dallas. Now, that’s your argument?
If you have an applicant whose parents are – let’s say one of them is a partner in your law firm in Texas, another one is a corporate lawyer. They have income that puts them in the top 1 percent of earners in the country, and the parents both have graduate degrees. They deserve a leg-up against, let’s say, an Asian or a white applicant whose parents are absolutely average in terms of education and income?”
Mrs. Obama’s Statement:
Back in college, I was one of the few Black students on my campus, and I was proud of getting into such a respected school. I knew I’d worked hard for it. But still, I sometimes wondered if people thought I got there because of affirmative action. It was a shadow that students like me couldn’t shake, whether those doubts came from the outside or inside our own minds.
But the fact is this: I belonged. And semester after semester, decade after decade, for more than half a century, countless students like me showed they belonged, too. It wasn’t just the kids of color who benefitted, either. Every student who heard a perspective they might not have encountered, who had an assumption challenged, who had their minds and their hearts opened gained a lot as well. It wasn’t perfect, but there’s no doubt that it helped offer new ladders of opportunity for those who, throughout our history, have too often been denied a chance to show how fast they can climb.
Of course, students on my campus and countless others across the country were — and continue to be — granted special consideration for admissions. Some have parents who graduated from the same school. Others have families who can afford coaches to help them run faster or hit a ball harder. Others go to high schools with lavish resources for tutors and extensive standardized test prep that help them score higher on college entrance exams. We don’t usually question if those students belong. So often, we just accept that money, power, and privilege are perfectly justifiable forms of affirmative action, while kids growing up like I did are expected to compete when the ground is anything but level.
So today, my heart breaks for any young person out there who’s wondering what their future holds —
and what kinds of chances will be open to them. And while I know the strength and grit that lies inside kids who have always had to sweat a little more to climb the same ladders, I hope and I pray that the rest of us are willing to sweat a little, too. Today is a reminder that we’ve got to do the work not just to enact policies that reflect our values of equity and fairness, but to truly make those values real in all of our schools, workplaces, and neighborhoods.
***
Thanks for posting all of Michelle Obama's statement, Fern.
I thought that she talked straight, Tom. Just the way we like it.
Yes, definitely. Both of them did.
President Obama’s Statement:
Affirmative action was never a complete answer in the drive towards a more just society. But for generations of students who had been systematically excluded from most of America’s key institutions–it gave us the chance to show we more than deserved a seat at the table. In the wake of the Supreme Court’s recent decision, it’s time to redouble our efforts. So, if you’re looking for ways to help right now, here are some organizations doing important work:
UNCF
Hispanic Scholarship Fund
APIA Scholars
American Indian College Fund
TheDream.US
Thurgood Marshall College Fund
DC CAP
Hope Chicago
I have kids with ADHD, which drastically affected their schooling, with one needing accommodations like extra time to finish tests. So many times I was told that I was trying to give my kid an advantage. Those neurotypical people never understood the struggles my kid had in keeping things on the rails.
I realize my example is imperfect. The majority opinion REFUSES to recognize the struggles minority students have had to even be considered for admission to schools like Harvard and UNC, which could damn sure benefit from the different perspectives of minority students. I noticed that Roberts, et. al. did not mention such policies as legacy students, who often get in regardless of their resumes. Privilege marches on. George W. comes to mind.
Those who were complaining about you were the ones most likely doing the abusing of the system that allowed your kid the extra time. It's a well-known tactic among the "over-strivers."
it sure is...a very old trick. very, very easy to accomplish. my oft-mentioned best friend has nieces who are bright, wealthy triplets, all three of them completely neurotypical, who got themselves relieved of test time limits (in no way legitimately) by the time they were ten.
kids talk to each other, which is a phenomenon teachers and the teacher adjacent people around them don't (or don't dare) ever want to fuck with.
Thank you for remembering to include anyone with ADHD as part of a minority group. My concern after this decision is knowing that so much in the way of accommodations and adaptations that have been made for special needs students and anyone with a disability came about because of civil rights legislation. Will they attack those next? Their reasoning seems to leave the door open!
Thank you TC and Fern. Will this decision achieve the reversal the six justices expect it to, the death of Affirmative Action or will it be reborn, like the bastard child of right-achieved, never-denied? Taking away it's legal protection by precedent does not take away the right to equality of opportunity, I think. There are at least a couple or three generations of the Obamas and Sotomayors and Jacksons et al who have risen above the place SCOTUS Thomas' would have returned them to who won't leave their brothers and sisters and baby cousins behind. They have numbers and allies and standing and wealth and power and, I do not think for a moment they will not use the powers of their position to carry on, but never call it out by name, Affirmative Action. TC's examples at the end of his post today suggests as much to me and Fern's inclusion of Mr Obama's list of resources implies, I think, proof that the Affirmative Action intent, in earlier Brown etc rulings, is established. It need not be conceded or turned back. By-other-means it will be continued as a right. Never named as such, but always going on. I rather hope that a new coalition is born from this ruling (and right of women's choice ruled against by this same court) that includes the many who are denied opportunities by virtue of some stigma or systemic bias that places them beyond the rungs of opportinity.
Hello Fred. Yes, I think there is a strong mixture of us in the US -- in the legal community, entertainment, arts, sports, science, teachers, doctors, nurses, journalists;, in the service industry and technology...and there are so many more to name. Another angle is that this court has weakened the right's prestige and control. The six conservative justices have shrunk and a few exposed their greed to ridicule. I also think of the Bidens and Blinkens; Jacksons and Austins : Beyoncés, Swifts, Legends, Keys and Partons; LeBron James and Serena Williams; the Obamas, Hillary Clinton, along with the people that we know, like and trust from the pharmacist and store keeper to the clerk and waitress as links in our chain. More of us know what we are up against and what we can delivery together.
I remember the iconic picture of two babies walking hand-in-hand, a paen to equality back in the day. All could be possible, for progressives. All is as it should be in God's world, for conservatives. Those two babies are now grandfather's or great grandfather's who stand shoulder to shoulder to should to shoulder, a strong front blocking the past while opening the future. Maybe a quiet wave of the US you know. They deliver. Not just hope or plead. You might be right: the rights prestige and control is coming to be in the hand of the great grandchildren of affirmative action, lower-case.
I expect the RW 6 will also go after Brown v. Board of Education. (After all, they've decided that discrimination is OK, as decided by their Hobby Lobby & (theoretical) web site decision.)
Interesting the white frat boys in the senate who graduated from Ivy League schools appear to be dumber than what their high school transcripts indicated!
I don't assume that white elected reps who attended Ivy League schools had high quality transcripts, while some may have; how many of them are the heirs of rich families who made generous donations and or legacy students.?
today is hardly the first day that we've been exposed to the fact that there's ALWAYS been affirmative action for the ones who've never spent a minute worrying about landing on their feet, whatever they do.
forgive me if I've told this story before, but I had a great history teacher, Bernie Zelechow, my first term at CCNY, who'd gone to CCNY but did his graduate work at Harvard. he was a famous prof's TA and was disturbed by reading some subliterate papers he had to grade. the professor looked at some of these papers and his eyebrows raised a few times and he gave what Bernie said was a tight smile and said that if he got subliterate papers from people whose names were on the buildings, his job was to stop reading and give a "gentleman's C." at Harvard, the job's not so difficult because most of those names go back to the Mayflower and the Massachusetts Bay Colony folks. you know: Cabot, Adams, Quincy, Lowell, Wigglesworth et al.
my best friend is a Harvard guy and said the main thing he learned there was that a lot of guys had serious head starts, so he'd better get to work. and he said that Reuben Brower's famous "Hum Six" taught him how to read, even though he was one of about two hundred students in the lecture hall and never exchanged two words with Brower. and btw, tuition at Harvard back then was about $3,000 a year, so very few middle-class kids had to take out any loans.
that shouldn't be such a revelation these days.
Anyone say it was? Michelle Obama expressed affirmative action for rich white folks very well.
it feels like a lot of people ARE surprised. god knows I'm not.
Roberts left some room with the references to essays. Harvard already made clear it will do work-arounds.
Fun note: Eric Foner was cited by Thomas, Sotomayor, and Jackson. Two of them cited him correctly.
No one seems willing to point out that Thomas today ruled himself unconstitutional and can no longer serve on the court.
last week, I watched that excellent Frontline documentary about the Nightmare Thomas Couple. I recommend it. it seems that when Thomas couldn't get interviewed by all the white shoe firms he applied to, he decided that it was because there was an invisible asterisk after his name that said "Affirmative Action...Don't Hire." an old "friend" of his who'd known him at Holy Cross said that this was a ridiculous interpretation of why he wasn't interviewed. this guy (who's also Black) said that it was obviously much more due to the longtime institutionalized racism that certainly held sway in the early '70s. it might seem like they both amount to the same thing, but that small difference is enormous.
I am reminded of a National Lampoon classic on "the great Jewish presidents." It said all of them were Jewish. And when it got to Nixon, it said Nixon was part of that group of people who are self-loathing. He may well have been self-loathing, actually. But I'm pretty sure it describes Thomas.
I'll certainly grant that Thomas's pathology is probably pretty textured and deep. very interesting if you're a psychoanalyst.
but I'm not, so fuck him.
😂😂😂
Yeah, it is as bad as "Plessy v Ferguson" - because 125 years after Plessy, we know better; in our hearts we know better; with 125 years of new and better discoveries about the human condition, we know better. We suspected this was coming, but it is still a dark day..... I am pissed.....
And rightfully so, Bruce, rightfully so.
“The student must be treated based on his or her experiences as an individual—not on the basis of race,” Roberts wrote. And, pray tell, why would this not apply equally to legacy students, many of whom get in due to privilege but may be less, perhaps far less, capable yet they take up a space that really should (in my opinion) be available to an applicant with far greater capabilities but who may not make the cut because too many slots were taken up by possibly-mediocre legacy student.
No more legacy acceptances! Wink, wink!
I just got the inspiration for doing a fake college essay from a not-too-smart Mayflower descendant. I'll probably forget by tomorrow. it could be pretty funny, though.
This article is excellent and one of the reasons I’m a paid subscriber.
Thank all of you.
I agree & my reason also!
Exactly!
The decision was red meat for the federalist six redneck right wing creatures! ‘Can’t put lipstick on a pig’ declared in a dissenting opinion! How scathing!
oh those dissents are going to be quoted frequently from now on.
when I was little, I thought going through "historical" events would be interesting fun.
right about now, I'm ready to put away childish things...
Yes!
This is excellent TC! Thank you. I have shared it with my family and friends.
Thank you Tom. It's a hard call between expanding the court, term limits and ethics.
With the Senate makeup as
it stands, there's no way we
could expand the court. Term
limits and hard core ethics rules with no loop holes, look
like the best avenue. Especially after the 2 other
rulings that just came down
downthis morning.
Yes indeed.
It seems to me a simple message that's consistent with the right wing's general MO. "You aren't getting into the club because we're pulling up the bridge over the moat. Deal with the crocodiles." It's a message from elites who think the more elite, their recently disclosed benefactors, won't do the same to them--eventually--because they're just not the right stuff because they draw a paycheck. So de'classe'.
is anybody really surprised?
the only thing I find surprising is that Roberts actually allowed a little wiggle room; he's always been a little chickenshit.
at least they didn't go for that insane "independent state legislatures" thing. but it's a rogue court so it's gonna do rogue shit. I was disappointed with Biden's lack of a solution and refusal to entertain backing any change. I agree with him (right now, at any rate) is that just adding justices can make SCOTUS even more of a political deal. and (again, right now, but I'm open to any suggestions at all--listen to me being God) I think regular term limits might be a better idea. these lifetime appointment things are scary as fuck
to change the subject (as if that's easy), I was blown away by Fintan O'Toole's magnificent takedown of that worthless, lying, pseudo-religious piece of human waste Mike Pence in the latest issue of the NYRB. I'm posting the link and praying there's no paywall.
https://www.nybooks.com/articles/2023/07/20/unrepentant-pence-fintan-otoole/
Biden's not wrong. He has his "finger on the pulse" better than you or I do. The proposals for term limits (18 years) and imposition of ethics rules won't go as far as you or I would go, but they're right in the middle of where the public is, and will have a good effect.
that DOES make sense.
Thanks again, TC. I hear you.