To the Editor:
In regards to the recent Supreme Court decision striking down affirmative action, I cannot help but express my outrage. As the founder and director of a preschool day care center, I have dedicated my life to early childhood interventions and I firmly believe that true equality begins at the earliest stages of education.
The reason why affirmative action has been necessary in college admissions is because not enough resources have been allocated to preparing children for formal schooling. Children of color from disadvantaged backgrounds need quality preparation to develop the necessary attitudes, skills, and behaviors that are essential for academic success.
While protesting the Supreme Court decision may provide some catharsis, the real solution to creating a diverse college population lies in investing more resources into early schooling and supporting parents. By doing so, we can ensure that a wider demographic of students is prepared and qualified for higher education.
It is important to recognize that the intelligence of these children is not what is lacking, but rather the opportunities for adequate preparation.
J. Susan Cedar
Santa Fe, N.M.
To the Editor:
I am a proud graduate of the Search for Education, Elevation, and Knowledge (SEEK) Program at the City University of New York. As someone who benefited from affirmative action, I strongly believe in its effectiveness in strengthening our society. The recent ruling against it is unjust, and the Supreme Court should feel ashamed for their immoral conduct.
Ronald Brinn
Great Neck, N.Y.
To the Editor:
There is a simple solution to the Supreme Court’s rejection of race-based affirmative action, and it has been successfully implemented in the California State University (C.S.U.) system for decades. C.S.U. operates an Equal Opportunity Program that provides education access and opportunities for low-income and educationally disadvantaged students.
While the majority of students admitted through this program belong to racial minority groups, there are also white and Asian students admitted under the program who have faced documented disadvantages.
To my knowledge, this program has never been challenged in court, and if it were, it is unlikely that the courts would rule against it. Other universities and colleges that can no longer operate their affirmative action programs should consider adopting the C.S.U. system.
Terrence Dunn
Vancouver, Wash.
(The writer is a retired institutional research director in the California State University system.)
To the Editor:
The Supreme Court’s rejection of affirmative action in college admissions actually presents a unique opportunity for Black people and America as a whole. It allows us to finally compete and achieve on our own merits without being second-guessed that our achievements were solely a result of affirmative action.
Now, the real challenge lies in implementing a comprehensive plan, similar to the Marshall Plan, to provide Black people with the education, counseling, tools, and support they need to succeed. This requires active involvement and investment, rather than cheap solutions or reverse racism.
Samuel Bahn
New York
To the Editor:
The Supreme Court’s rejection of affirmative action in college admissions will disproportionately impact poor and disadvantaged children’s chances of attending prestigious institutions of higher learning. It is only fair that “legacy admissions,” which provide preferential treatment to children of wealthy alumni and donors, be banned as well. What is good for one group should be good for another.
Subir Mukerjee
Olympia, Wash.
To the Editor:
Affirmative action in college admissions has not only provided opportunities for students from homogeneous backgrounds to experience diversity, but it has also taught them invaluable lessons about the acceptance of differences. The recent Supreme Court ruling against affirmative action means that these important lessons will now play a diminished role in students’ education, potentially leading to an increase in hatred and lack of understanding.
Tom Templeton
Clifton Park, N.Y.
To the Editor:
As a self-proclaimed liberal, I find myself in the minority in applauding the Supreme Court’s decision. What many fail to see is that this decision gives us an opportunity to remove race as a determinant factor in our thinking.
Race is an artificial construct, and we are all part of the same species. I believe that smart and well-intentioned people will find innovative ways to promote diversity and help those who have been historically disadvantaged. This is a chance to turn the old lemons of discrimination into the sweet lemonade of progress and humanity. It’s time for universities like U.N.C. and Harvard to take action and move toward a long-overdue social goal.
Steven Seeche
Cambridge, Mass.
To the Editor:
It is nearly impossible to have an unbiased discussion about affirmative action, even among the justices of the Supreme Court. Discrimination exists because it is not based on reason. Chief Justice John Roberts famously wrote, “The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” Unfortunately, discrimination will continue despite our laws and efforts.
As a tribal species, we have prejudices based on race, gender, sexuality, nationality, and more. Discrimination and prejudice have always existed and will continue to do so, regardless of what the law says.
Charles Merrill
New York
To the Editor:
One possible outcome of the Supreme Court’s ruling on affirmative action is that non-elite colleges and universities that admit a higher percentage of qualified applicants than prestigious institutions like Harvard and the University of North Carolina may benefit. These institutions offer valuable opportunities and upward mobility to their students.
Helen Mango
Tinmouth, Vt.
(The writer is a professor of geology and chemistry at Castleton University.)
To the Editor:
In her essay, Linda Greenhouse ponders whether the conservative justices who ruled against abortion rights in the Dobbs case might regret the life-threatening denial of healthcare they have caused for women in red states. It is unlikely they feel any regret. However, they are probably deeply concerned about the electoral harm they have caused to the conservative politicians and social movements they support.
David Schlitz
Washington
Denial of responsibility! VigourTimes is an automatic aggregator of Global media. In each content, the hyperlink to the primary source is specified. All trademarks belong to their rightful owners, and all materials to their authors. For any complaint, please reach us at – [email protected]. We will take necessary action within 24 hours.
