Column: Why aren't we talking more about the Supreme Court's affirmative action decision?

"There is a debt to the Negro people which they can never repay. At least then, they must make amends." — Sojourner Truth

Why was there such a muted response to Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, the landmark case that ended affirmative action in higher education?

There seem to be several possible explanations:

Denial: There are many who are simply in denial and cannot bring themselves to talk seriously about the end of affirmative action. They are in, some might say, the first of the five stages of grief (denial, anger, bargaining, depression, and acceptance).

Nothing lost: Affirmative action was mostly window dressing and tokenism. The numbers were very small. It had not really moved the needle in terms of real economic difference. Sure, a few individuals — especially white women — who profited from it, got into some elite schools, but the vast majority of minority folks were not affected by it. So, there was nothing to mourn because nothing was really lost.

Waiting to Exhale: People were waiting for the other shoe to fall. Ending affirmative action in admissions did not end it in other areas, like the military or business. People are waiting to see if the state legislatures and big business follow the Supreme Court’s retrograde.

Backburner Issue: As important as affirmative action is, the current liberal prime directive is to save our democracy. Much of the energy has been siphoned off to deal with attacks on our democracy. Affirmative action will have to be put on the backburner until democracy is secured.

Fatigue: People — mainly white people — are just tired of fighting the racial battles. It is just too exhaustive, and people are ready to move on to other causes. Perhaps if we ignore race, it will go away, (An attitude we have also taken toward climate change).

All of the above are possible. Perhaps a little of each of them explains the hushed silence of so many.

On the other hand, folks have said I am misinterpreting the silence as acquiescence when it really is the silence of resistance. People are going to say they will follow the Supreme Court’s mandate not to consider race, but they are going to wink among themselves and go right on considering it because it is impractical (if not impossible) to achieve diversity goals or an integrated society without intentionality and awareness. Moreover, given how baked in the advantages of white privilege, not to consider race would result in a resegregation of higher education — a goal that only rabid racists would aspire. The use of proxies (poverty, zip codes, rank in class) was somewhat successful as a means to maintain diversity in Michigan and California when affirmative action was ended in those states.

Here is what happened in Michigan and California the year after the states banned affirmative action. The total percentage of Black, Hispanic, and Native American first-year students at Berkeley Law fell from 19% in 1996 to less than 6% in 1997. Enrollment of those groups among Michigan Law's first-year classes declined from 17% in 2005 to 9% by 2008, when the school felt the full impact of the state's 2006 prohibition on considering race in admissions. These kinds of sharp drops were experienced at all of the institutions throughout both states.

Estimating a 50% cut in the number of Black doctors and lawyers produced every year will have a significantly negative impact on minority communities like Gary, Indiana, and Harlem, New York, which, during the heyday of affirmative action, had trouble attracting Black professionals back to their communities.

Moreover, if there is a benefit to white students in interaction with minority students, having 50% fewer minority students with which to interact will have negative consequences for those white students. One way of getting over the fear of each other is to know one another. This Supreme Court-mandated resegregation of America makes the problem worse — not better.

Here is what I think is happening and will happen.

Black America never asked for affirmative action. When the cities were burning in the '60s and Black people were on the verge of a race war, affirmative action was the palliative that White America offered up as good faith proof that it would treat Black people fairly in the future. Affirmative action started out as a federal governmental policy that would require all business to consider race in the granting of government business. It soon spread as a standard to help bridge the economic and opportunity gap caused by years of Jim Crow.

Until June 29, 2023, after a unilateral decision by the Supreme Court, when White America took back that pledge. How will Black America respond to yet another broken promise?

I am a cynic and believe that White America is not going to treat Black Americans fairly or provide expanded opportunities. In fact, I think the opposite. The pie is currently being redivided with smaller and smaller parts going to Black and Brown people and larger and larger pieces going to the top 1% of White America. And when middle class and blue-collar white people complain, the politicians will blame the shrinking portion on the Black and Brown people who are “taking their jobs, committing all the crime, on welfare, bloating government costs, and causing their taxes to rise.”

What I think will happen is that affirmative action will be as dead as Prohibition was dead — “more honored in the breach than in the observance.” Some colleges and universities will continue to look for ways to legitimately diversify their student bodies by using a combination of proxy programs and stratagems like Ten Cent Plans, Miracle Essays, Zip Codes, HBCU pipeline and outreach/sponsorship programs. With the best of intentions and efforts, some may even manage to approximate current levels of campus diversity. Assuming that these programs survive the legal challenges, the efforts to revive Jim Crow will be thwarted. On the other hand, many colleges and universities will not put in the work and simply allow serendipity to guide its diversity goals.

On some campuses, the greatest engine of diversity will continue to be the athletic teams. The nation’s colleges and universities will be —as is the country — divided along lines of those who have robust programs (a few) and those that don’t have any (the majority). Minority communities will suffer since the overall numbers of minority graduates will go down by as much as 50% of current levels. There will be fewer Black lawyers, doctors, teachers to address the growing demand for their services.

Eventually, the growing time bomb of political demographics will explode around 2045 when the nation officially becomes a majority minority population. At that time, the diversity of political representation will force changes in the law, perhaps a new (reformed) Supreme Court. Ironically, that time may bring about a more heterogeneous Congress that may be able to work together for emigration reform, climate change, and women’s and minority rights. Perhaps by then, the demographics will be such that one won’t need to use race as a plus factor in admissions. Most of those in the pool will be increasingly minority and America will have learned the lessons of history and perhaps, put to good use our national motto, e pluribus unum.

Frank Motley is an adjunct professor at Indiana University's Department of African American and African Diaspora Studies and a retired administrator who worked at IU's Maurer School of Law.

This article originally appeared on The Herald-Times: Columnist writes the near future is fewer Black lawyers, doctors