Supreme Court lives in ‘conservative bubble’ of ignorance over affirmative action | Opinion

On June 30th the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that affirmative action in college admissions was unconstitutional. In a case that reviewed both the University of North Carolina’s and Harvard’s admissions practices, a 6-3 majority decided that using race as part of the determination of a potential student’s admissibility was illegal.

Writing for the majority, Chief Justice John Roberts said “the time for making distinctions based on race has passed.”

According to the National Center for Education Statistics, in 2018-2019 just over 62% of bachelor’s degrees conferred were to white students, while just over 10% went to African American students and just under 15% to Hispanic students.

While not dramatic, the difference between college admissions and the population of the country is noticeable As of the 2020 census 60.1% of the population was white, 12.2% was African American and 18.5% was Hispanic. The numbers become even more dramatic when only four-year colleges are considered.

What is even more stark are the increases in minority enrollment that affirmative action policies have fostered. In 1976 more than 85% of degrees conferred went to white students, with just 8.3% to African American students and 4.1% to Hispanic students. By 2018 those numbers have seen a dramatic transformation, with 51% of graduates being white, 13.6% African American and 25% Hispanic.

If the point of affirmative action in the college enrollment process was to encourage racial diversity in admissions, it was a resounding success. According to Chief Justice Roberts, that is no longer necessary. California has hard data showing that Roberts is wrong.

The University of California schools haven’t been able to use race as a criteria in admissions since 1996, when voters approved a ballot measure ending affirmative action in UC schools. The results were in no way surprising — minority enrollment in the UC system plummeted, despite the schools actively trying to continue diversifying.

UC admissions teams tried using everything from socio-economic status to location to outreach programs to continue the diversification of their school system. Still, the UC schools admit that the population of their campuses does not even come close to representing the population of the state. While 55.7% of the high school seniors in California were Hispanic, only 26.7% of the students entering UC schools were of that racial category.

Roberts, along with the other five conservative Justices who voted to ban affirmative action, have taken the mantra that “Justice is Blind” to the point of absurdity. As Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson observed, under the new ruling one student could be granted admission to North Carolina Law school, in part, because they would be the 5th generation to attend the University, while African Americans weren’t even allowed to attend UNC School of Law until 1951. Inequities on top of inequities.

Only in the conservative bubble could six unelected judges feel comfortable saying to more 130 million minority citizens of the United States that racism is not only over, but the playing field is level now.

There are pros and cons to affirmative action. I’m not willing to say that affirmative action should absolutely be continued, it is far from a perfect system, and far from the best way to level the playing field. However, it is irresponsible, and intellectually dishonest, to claim “the field is level now” as a reason to end the program. Inequity exists, and the only people claiming otherwise are willfully ignorant, deeply racist, or have a way to profit from the inequity.

I wonder which one applies to Chief Justice Roberts?

Noha Elbaz of Clovis is a college administrator. Email: noha.elbaz1@gmail.com.