The Dangers of a Colorblind Approach to Education in a Racialized Nation

On June 29th, 2023, the Supreme Court (SCOTUS) released its decision against affirmative action in the case Students for Fair Admissions Inc (SFFA). v. President and the Fellows of Harvard. The legal question of the case: if Harvard College’s consideration of race within the admissions process violated Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Equal Protection

Clause under the 14th Amendment? This case is linked to the Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. University of North Carolina. In a 6-3 decision, the court found it permissible under the Equal Protection Clause of the Civil Rights Act, but held the violation of

the equal protection under the 14th Amendment clause. The 14th Amendment was also held for UNC. One avenue that the court used to justify the ruling was citing Brown v. Board of Education as promoting education “must be made available to all on equal terms”; the landmark Supreme Court case outlawed separate but equal schools.

The court cites education must be equal in all regards, as the consideration of race in favor of a particular candidate over another does not live up to the totality of equality as outlined in previous Supreme Court cases and the 14th Amendment equal protection clause. The court determined the Equal Protection Clause means that everyone should function under the law as equal, and special considerations in the admissions process do not adhere to that Amendment.

The ruling does not meticulously outline how colleges should approach race following the ruling. The ruling states that considering race as it relates to how experiences have shaped an applicant is okay if that fixation is centered around their character rather than race alone.

The SFFA is a nonprofit founded by conservative legal strategist Edward Blum in 2014 with the sole purpose of ridding American universities of affirmative action. The organization’s mission statement is for the college admissions process to “restore the original principles” of the Civil Rights Movement.

Affirmative action originated from the Wagner Act of 1935 and was previously focused on the prevention of unfair labor practices by employers. President John F. Kennedy linked affirmative action to racial equality in his 1961 executive order 10925, which promoted workplace equality regardless of race, gender, sex, religion, or nationality. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 exacerbated the philosophy behind workplace equality from affirmative action. Much of this logic translates to considering affirmative action in schools as the Civil rights movement was a central struggle not just out of the workplace but in all facets addressing racial injustice. Following the passing of the Civil rights act of 1964 and the death of Dr. King, many Ivy League institutions pledged to use a consideration of race in the case of underrepresented minorities in the admissions process.

The SCOTUS ruling overturns the case of Grutter v. Bollinger (2003). Barbara Grutter, a White woman, claims to be wrongfully discriminated against because she did not receive admission to the University of Michigan Law School despite having what she thought to be a stellar LSAT score, GPA, and overall law school application. The University of Michigan Law School justified the discrimination used in affirmative action to help minorities that have been disadvantaged because of the United States’ history of racial injustices. The court ruled against Grutter because her case was mainly built around the entitlement that she felt she belonged in the institution without tangible qualitative evidence that she was denied admission explicitly because of affirmative action. The lack of transparency around admissions decisions creates uncertainty around how affirmative action works, as race quotas are unconstitutional.  

The SFFA’s claims against affirmative action proved to be more deliberate than Grutter’s.

The SFFA tackles the idea of equality as outlined in the constitution. Moreover, the unique position of the SFFA takes an unorthodox approach of claiming that having policies that promote diversity and inclusion within universities of racial groups who have been traditionally marginalized is going against the idea of equality. 

The consideration of race in college admissions has been historically used to promote diversity on campuses and attribute higher learning opportunities to traditionally marginalized communities. The liberal Justices Sotomayor and Jackson both oppose the ruling. Justice Sotomayor says that “racial inequality will persist in educational institutions so long as it is ignored.” A colorblind approach to college admissions decisions does acknowledge the entrenched racial struggles that minorities have faced in America. When institutions fail to acknowledge race, there is a failure to recognize the barriers to education pertinent to factors such as race.

Justice Jackson mentions the contradictory nature of the proposed absence of race in admissions decisions but not in military academies. America seems to prioritize racial inclusion for military benefit rather than educational enrichment. Furthermore, America values minorities’ bodies but not their minds.   

In the past year, the SCOTUS has attacked reproductive health by overturning Roe v. Wade and now has challenged affirmative action. This recent trend of the court’s attacks on freedoms comes at a time when the court is primarily conservative. Chief Justice Roberts, Clarence Thomas, Brett Kavanaugh, Amy Coney Barrett, and Neil Gorsuch are the most conservative, while Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Ketanji Brown Jackson are the most liberal. Many are concerned over what other rights the court will overturn under its conservative majority. 

The court is supposed to be neutral umpires of the law, but there are clear ties to each justice’s particular appointment. The justices’ political leanings are aligned with the party of the president appointed by, with the most conservative being Republican and the most liberal being appointed by Democrats. Clarence Thomas was under much scrutiny recently for accepting lavish gifts from conservatives, and this raises concern about potential influence within his Supreme Court decisions. Many Democrats have pushed for a code of ethics, as there is none currently in place for Supreme Court justices, hoping to combat any outside influences on the justices. 

The SCOTUS ruling against affirmative action is due to the SFFA taking advantage of the flaw in the 14th Amendment about equality. The American people have to open their eyes to the possibility that the language around equality is outdated, and a new approach to how institutions function, such as education, is needed to correct he racial imbalances of the nation. A new approach focused on equity should be considered as a means for mitigating America’s long history of racial injustice.

10 Suggestions for further reading:

Cornell Law School: History of Affirmative Action 

How The End Of Affirmative Action Reroutes The Talent Pipeline by Corinne Lestch

A look back at Grutter v. Bollinger 

02-241. Grutter v. Bollinger (04/01/03) 

The Neglected College Race Gap: Racial Disparities Among College Completers by CJ Libassi

The Supreme Court is the most conservative in 90 years by Nina Totenberg

How the Supreme Court conservative ‘supermajority’ is changing the country by Zachary B. Wolf

How Trump compares with other recent presidents in appointing federal judges by John Gramlich

Supreme Court strikes down affirmative action programs in college admissions by Amy Howe

How Race in College Admissions Became a US Flashpoint by Kelsey Butler and Ella Ceron