The Supreme Court has made a significant ruling, with a 6-3 decision stating that racial preferences in college admissions contravene the US Constitution. This signifies a positive change, as it ensures that deserving students with high grades and test scores will no longer be overlooked in favor of applicants who may have the “right” skin color but may not be as qualified. This ruling came about after compelling evidence was presented to the court, highlighting instances of discrimination against Asian-American and white applicants by Harvard and the University of North Carolina.
In the past, it was observed that a black, Hispanic, or Native American student with a combined SAT score above 1,100 might receive an invitation to apply to Harvard, while an Asian girl would need at least 1,350 and an Asian boy at least 1,380. This disparity in standards based on race clearly indicates an unjust system. It is important to note that the true opportunity gap in our nation stems not from race, but from socioeconomic factors. Affirmative action, contrary to popular belief, has failed to assist underprivileged students. In fact, it has favored the wealthy, as demonstrated by Harvard’s admissions practices.
It has come to light that only 3% of Harvard’s student body come from low-income families, while an astonishing 67% come from families in the top fifth of the nation’s earners. Additionally, three-quarters of the black and Hispanic students at Harvard come from affluent families. This discrepancy highlights the preferential treatment given to privileged applicants, irrespective of their race. Justice Clarence Thomas underscores this point, noting that Harvard provides the same admissions advantage to a wealthy black applicant as it does to a black applicant from a disadvantaged background.
Some college administrators are already attempting to circumvent the court’s ruling by eliminating standardized tests, thereby making discrimination harder to detect. This underhanded tactic is unacceptable. Instead of clinging to racial preferences, colleges should focus on reaching out to economically disadvantaged students who show great potential, regardless of their race. The aim should be to promote economic mobility and uphold the ideals of the American dream.
It is worth noting that students from low-income families, impoverished neighborhoods, and failing schools score significantly lower on the math and English SATs compared to their peers. If any group requires a boost in the admissions process, it is these students from impoverished backgrounds. A study by the Century Foundation reveals that black students, on average, score only 56 points lower than other students. Therefore, socioeconomic factors must be the focal point when considering additional support for students.
Proponents of affirmative action argue that a racially diverse student body fosters a better learning environment. However, it is important to recognize that Harvard and other elite schools establish separate living spaces, lounges, and even graduation ceremonies for black students, ensuring minimal interaction with students of other races. This contradicts the supposed benefits of diversity. During oral arguments, Justice Thomas questioned the educational benefits of racial diversity, but received no satisfactory response from Harvard or UNC.
Justice Thomas humorously points out that two white students from different backgrounds, for example, one from Appalachia and the other from a wealthy San Francisco suburb, may offer more diversity than two students of differing races who both attended elite schools in Manhattan’s Upper East Side. It is unjust and irrational to assume that a black student possesses a different viewpoint simply because of their skin color.
Critics of the Supreme Court’s decision argue that it overturns decades of precedent. However, this view is misguided since affirmative action was never intended to be a permanent fixture. Chief Justice Roberts emphasizes that UNC and Harvard lost their cases, in part, because they were unable to specify an end date for their affirmative action policies. In 2003, when the University of Michigan Law School’s affirmative action policy was upheld, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor declared that it should no longer be necessary in 25 years, i.e., by 2028. Yet, when the question of an end point was raised during the recent case, no satisfactory answer was provided. The time to end affirmative action is now; postponing it for another 25 years will not improve its inherent flaws.
Affirmative action, in truth, is a euphemism for reverse discrimination. It is an ugly process that perpetuates inequality. The left’s argument that the court’s ruling aligns with a conservative political agenda is unfounded. It is, in fact, the liberal justices who are discarding precedent by inventing new justifications for affirmative action. They claim it is necessary to rectify historical injustices, a position directly contradicting Justice Powell’s ruling in 1978. Chief Justice Roberts powerfully rebuts the dissenting justices for deviating from established principles. Justice Thomas warns of the dangers that lie ahead if the liberal perspective prevails, envisioning a world in which individuals are defined solely by their skin color, continually demanding entitlements and preferences based on that factor. Fortunately, the Constitution and the Supreme Court are obstructing such a perilous path.
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.
