The US Supreme Court ruled against affirmative action at the end of June. What difference will it make?
Affirmative action existed before it was named. It was called “discrimination.” Discrimination against blacks but welcoming whites was affirmative action for whites in all but name. “Discrimination” is still prohibited by law. But the current Court dislikes measuring “discrimination” by the pattern of behavior, which is the best evidence of what was intended. Measuring whether people are discriminating by insisting on direct evidence of what’s in their hearts and minds without drawing inferences from what they did is almost useless and allows judges to refuse to find that Blacks have been discriminated against and refuse to find that whites benefitted from discrimination against Blacks.
It’s hard to tell how big a difference the Court’s decision in June may make. Some schools will give up. Some won’t have the resources to deal with it. I have some hope for others. Let me use my own education as an example. After World War II, Princeton deliberately changed its admission policies, significantly increasing the number of Jews admitted. I hadn’t considered Princeton because of its prior exclusion of Jews but our high school college advisor got the message and told me to apply. My on-campus interview was all about encouraging me to come. That warm welcome made all the difference. I accepted their offer and joined the class of 1962.
Princeton deliberately kept broadening its student body. Woodrow Wilson, a former president of Princeton, had left a horrible legacy by excluding Blacks coupled with “affirmative action” for whites. So Blacks shied away from Princeton the same way Jews had. But President Robert Goheen brought new people to the admissions office to recruit Blacks, and appointed a Black assistant dean. Only one Black man graduated from my class at Princeton, but within a decade Princeton’s complexion was changing. At the same time, Princeton began making plans to admit women, who were first admitted in 1969.
So, my first point is that it took “affirmative action” to keep Blacks, Jews and women out.
My second point is that the culture of many schools changed. We celebrate Reunions with a P-rade in which the returning classes and new graduates parade in front of each other. As we walk the parade route, the changing complexion and gender of Princeton graduates is obvious, and the mood is celebratory. I can imagine changes around the edges but I can’t imagine going back to the kind of place it was before World War II, or alumni allowing it. Many elite schools will find workarounds. At those schools, the Court can take its decisions and shove them into the appropriate receptacle.
That leads to my third point – we’re headed for an increasingly three-tiered educational system. Many elite schools will find ways to integrate while community colleges will continue to educate large numbers of children from disadvantaged families, Black and white. But others will be all over the lot.
There are a lot of pressures in this society toward being able to work comfortably together. We’re a very diverse country and most of us have learned to live and work together and enjoy the company of people from different religious, ethnic and racial backgrounds as well as across the gender divides. Those who refuse to learn that lesson are disadvantaging themselves. That’s the point the Supreme Court refused to get and it’s not clear how many of the students they have injured will be white, Black or just about everybody.
Along with our disappointment, I’d cheer for the good guys, contribute to the historically Black colleges and universities, and dismantle the un-American Supreme Court.
Steve Gottlieb’s latest book is Unfit for Democracy: The Roberts Court and The Breakdown of American Politics. He is the Jay and Ruth Caplan Distinguished Professor Emeritus at Albany Law School, served on the New York Civil Liberties Union board, on the New York Advisory Committee to the U.S. Civil Rights Commission, and as a US Peace Corps Volunteer in Iran.
The views expressed by commentators are solely those of the authors. They do not necessarily reflect the views of this station or its management.