Imagine you’re standing in a long line for the bathroom at a sporting event. You glance at your watch and see the next quarter is about to begin. Eager to get back to your seat, you stretch to see what the holdup is.
You see an attendant in uniform standing before the bathroom door, only letting in fans of the home team while the rest of you must wait.
You hear the other people around you groan: the game has resumed, but you’re still waiting. Then, a person in business attire approaches the front of the line and begins arguing with the attendant. The new person turns and announces to the line of people that preferential treatment for the home team’s fans will cease. And, to remedy the unfair treatment forced upon your team’s fans, you all get to use the bathroom in turn now.
Of course, this simple analogy pales in comparison to affirmative action and the discrimination that led to its initiation decades ago. But the concept is similar. One group of people was unjustly receiving favoritism, and effort was taken to amend the unfair treatment.
Even so, the reality is far more complex. In light of a recent decision by the United States Supreme Court to discontinue allowing college admissions based on race, we’d like to discuss affirmative action.
A Touch of History
Racism, discrimination, and civil rights violations are an important part of United States history that drove the creation of affirmative action. We will only touch lightly on the extensive history here but suggest you research further for a deeper understanding. For instance,
Joy Reid explains
her experience with affirmative action in an eye-opening video on Twitter.
According to
Brittanica, “Affirmative action was initiated by the administration of President Lyndon Johnson (1963–69) in order to improve opportunities for African Americans while civil rights legislation was dismantling the legal basis for discrimination.” That one sentence alone is a lot to take in. Racial discrimination was legal in the U.S. as recently as the 1960s.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was a “comprehensive U.S. legislation intended to end discrimination based on race, color, religion, or national origin.”1
For example, the Act guarantees equal voting rights by removing restrictions biased against minorities and forbids discrimination by trade unions, schools, or employers involved in interstate commerce or doing business with the federal government.1
This would mean that the discrimination occurring would no longer be allowed. This, in a country where enslaved Black people were once considered legally less than white people. For instance, the 3/5 Compromise considered enslaved Black people to be three-fifths of a free (white) person. It gave southern slaveholders more representatives in Congress than they would have had without it, ensuring they could pass laws protecting slavery or defeat laws attacking it.2
Consider how monumental a decision it was to cease allowing discrimination. Of course, those striving to maintain the status quo have challenged affirmative action since its beginning.
Now, think back to our sports event analogy. While an official stepped in to rectify the inequity at the restroom lines, the home fans likely wouldn’t have been pleased. Some may have realized the situation had been unfair all along and accepted the decision to make amends. But others hold their privilege so tightly they refuse to acknowledge how it harms others.
Clearly, this has been the case with affirmative action.
Opposition
When affirmative action and anti-discrimination practices found solid ground, “reverse discrimination” claims abound. Those in groups who had benefited from racial discrimination feared being on the receiving end of such treatment.
“When you're accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression.” While the origin of this quote has not been definitively identified, its message is clear. Those who are in the habit of receiving special treatment are reluctant to let it go.
However, it is not “reverse discrimination” or inequity that they experience. They feel the loss of their perceived normal as a bit of privilege is eliminated.
In 1989, the Supreme Court imposed significant restrictions on race-based affirmative action, limiting the use of racial preferences by states that were stricter than those it applied to the federal government. In subsequent years, the court ruled “federal affirmative action programs were unconstitutional unless they fulfilled a ‘compelling governmental interest.’” Then, in 1996, the California Civil Rights Initiative passed, prohibiting “all government agencies and institutions from giving preferential treatment to individuals on the basis of their race or sex.”3
And the challenges have continued. While some find traction in court, others face rejection. The latest decision by the Supreme Court is feared to be a blow to efforts for racial equality.
Privilege Reigns Supreme
A little over a decade ago, an organization called Students for Fair Admissions sued Harvard University, arguing that their race-conscious admissions policy violated Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. As we mentioned earlier, Title VI bars discrimination based on race, color, or national origin.4
On June 30, 2023, the disproportionately white and conservative court ruled in favor of Students for Fair Admissions. The organization objects to the use of race as one of the factors in college admissions.5
So, to be clear, colleges can no longer base admissions on race. The sporting event official can’t allow away team fans who were held back to use the restroom before the home team fans. So, the home team fans step to the front of the line again. And, if their parents were home team fans, they get to jump ahead, too.
Because only race-based admissions have been stricken. Legacy admissions are still in place. In an incredible piece,
Tayo Bero writes, “But contrary to popular perception, affirmative action isn’t just a ‘get in free’ card for Black post-secondary students. Women, people with disabilities, and other historically marginalized groups have all benefited from the court’s recognition that circumstances beyond their control may exclude them from these institutions.
“But much like welfare, public housing and other social programs created to help all vulnerable people, Black students were made the poster children for affirmative action.”
Bero explains that legacy admissions, donor admissions, athlete scholarships, and other admissions preferences are also affirmative action. She wrote about a 2021 study that found “only 57% of Harvard’s white students had gotten in on merit. Yet somehow, the court decides two years later that that same school doesn’t need to be intentional about diversity?”4
Furthermore,
Michelle Obama explains
her experience with affirmative actions and her concerns with this recent court ruling. “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.”
10
In fact,
The New York Times
reports, “Peter Arcidiacono, a Duke University economist who has analyzed Harvard
data, found that a typical white legacy applicant’s chances of being admitted increase fivefold over a typical, white non-legacy applicant. Even so, eliminating legacy preferences at Harvard, the
study
said, would not offset the loss in diversity if race-conscious admissions were also eliminated.”
11
The message is clear. Privileged white people won’t let go of their advantages without a fight.
Putting the Action Back into Affirmative Action
The court’s decision is troubling for college admissions but also implies further attacks on civil liberties and other anti-discrimination practices.
Following this perceived conservative victory,
Forbes
warns that trickle-down effects within corporate America are likely, especially regarding hiring. Some states have already started to push back against diversity policies.
6
Disturbingly, Will Hild of Consumers Research, a conservative advocacy group, boasted, “The days of racial discrimination in hiring, especially through these DEI programs, are numbered.”7
We must remain vigilant. As we have covered in
our blog, DEI practices benefit the individual and can lead to business success. While it’s understandable to feel despair in reaction to yet another SCOTUS decision that takes aim at civil rights, all is not lost.
In fact,
Barack Obama tells
us how we can enact change. “If we want to bring about real change, then the choice isn’t between protest and politics. We have to do both. We have to mobilize to raise awareness, and we have to organize and cast our ballots to make sure that we elect candidates who will act on reform.” The
Obama Foundation
shared ways to take action.
Got a question about race?
Contact us
and we will answer your questions without judgment. We’re in this together!
Sources: