Affirmative Action: A declaration of reparation, not discrimination. For nearly 100 years African Americans endured slavery, murder, and hate before eventual emancipation. Add then another 100 years of racial segregation and discrimination. Fifty years ago, even after the Equal Rights Amendment, there were still “White-Only” businesses and universities throughout America.
According to the Digest of Education Statistics, in 1976 (the earliest year for which there was a detailed breakdown), only about 9.4% of all college and university students in the U.S. were Black. This included historically black colleges, meaning that the largest white-run universities had far less. The percentage was even lower in the 1960s - but real data is lacking due to the suppression of racial statistics and information.
In the realm of higher education, many universities, especially in the Southern states, still maintained "whites preferred" admissions policies through the1960s and 1970s. The exact number of such universities is difficult to determine due to incomplete historical records and the varying degrees to which universities implemented and enforced segregation policies. In many cases, even where there were no explicit policies barring Black students, discriminatory practices and a hostile environment effectively kept these institutions mostly or entirely white.
One notable example is the University of Mississippi, which didn't admit its first Black student, James Meredith, until 1962, in the face of enormous resistance and violence. Many other universities in the South also began to integrate in the early to mid-1960s, often under court order or federal pressure - and then with only ‘token’ numbers.
Affirmative Action policies (1961-1965) focused on making the government, and companies doing business with the government, give equal opportunity based on the racial makeup of society rather than social bias. University admissions were NOT a specific focus of affirmative action in its initial form. But, without equal education, it was hard to find equal employment and representation. So universities took up the policy in an attempt to make college admissions sensitive to the demographic makeup of society. Of course, the racists challenged these policies in the Supreme Court. Of note are these:
1: "Regents of the University of California v. Bakke" (1978): The Court held that while race could be considered as a factor in admissions, the use of strict racial quotas was not permissible.
2: "Grutter v. Bollinger" (2003) and "Gratz v. Bollinger" (2003): In these cases related to admissions at the University of Michigan, the Court upheld the use of race as one factor among many in law school admissions in Grutter, but struck down an undergraduate admissions policy that awarded points based on race in Gratz.
3: "Fisher v. University of Texas" (2013 and 2016): In these cases, the Court upheld the university's use of race as one factor in admissions, affirming that universities have a compelling interest in fostering a diverse student body.
The data from the 2020 Census showed that the non-Hispanic White race was around 58% of the total U.S. population. 18.5% of the U.S. population identified as Hispanic or Latino, and about 13.4% identified as Black or African American.
Also in 2020, according to the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), about 56% of undergraduate students were White, 20% were Hispanic, 15% were Black, 7% were Asian/Pacific Islander, and 1% were American Indian/Alaska Native. This, of course, could vary significantly by the institution and region, but overall significantly more representative of ‘equal’ admissions than in the past.
What all this tells me, is that affirmative action has indeed succeeded in providing equality in education, overall. And it had significant legal precedent to continue. Affirmative action was about equal education - not racial profiling or “reverse discrimination”. For the SCOTUS to rule race was not to be used as a measure of racial equality in college admissions was a patent racist ruling in and of itself.
This most recent religious and politically motivated court also engaged in Ideological and political activism that had nothing to do with constitutional interpretation.
The LGBTQ ruling on artistic expression and religious objections had no standing (the plaintiff was NOT actually asked or forced to serve any LGBTQ person or entity), and a Student Loan Forgiveness case was brought by GOP state governments that had no legal standing (could not show harm to the states) for purely political reasons. The court not only decided to hear these cases without good cause, but it ruled on purely ideological (rather than constitutional) grounds in each.
A “Christian” postal worker did not want to work on the “Sabbath”. In a country that is constitutionally bound to NOT promote religion or rule in favor of one, SCOTUS did the opposite. What's next? Baptists refusing to work on Wednesdays? Muslims taking 5 breaks a day for prayer? Jewish workers refusing to work Saturdays? Religion's Pandora's box is open for business.
All this followed the SCOTUS ruling that interpreted that the Constitution allowed the state's Government to decide if a woman must use their body for reproduction. The Government!
Add to this the mounting evidence that more than one Justice has been receiving gifts and rewards from political and special interests - and we have a REAL inciteful problem.
The road back to justice, equality, and the rule of constitutional law must be instilled back into SCOTUS. Due to arcane laws that do not allow for a Justices' term limits or require the Senate to confirm appointments in a timely manner, we have allowed one or two individuals to stack the court with people not fit to judge with impartiality.
But the hens are being guarded by the fox these days. Change will come only from We The People at the ballot box. Elect legislators that will change laws that incite constitutional activism in the Court and return it to its stated role as a check and balance, rather than a tipping point.
JWB
