How America Fell Out of Love With Affirmative Action - The Daily Beast

On Tuesday, the U.S. Supreme Court delivered a resounding “NO” to race-based affirmative action. In a 6-3 decision, the Court struck down as unconstitutional the admissions’ policies of Harvard and the University of North Carolina. Both schools had impermissibly penalized Asian-American and white applicants in the name of diversity. The schools had transgressed the 14th Amendment’s guaranty of equal protection under law.

Diversity is no longer a license for “pernicious” discrimination, in the Court’s view. “Courts may not license separating students on the basis of race without an exceedingly persuasive justification that is measurable and concrete enough to permit judicial review,” John Roberts, the chief justice, wrote for the majority. The universities response of “trust us”, would no longer suffice.

By the same measure, Roberts cautioned that “nothing in this opinion should be construed as prohibiting universities from considering an applicant’s discussion of how race affected his or her life, be it through discrimination, inspiration, or otherwise.” An applicant’s own life journey remained relevant.

Here, Harvard had levied a de facto “Asian tax.” Practically speaking, the school effectively mandated that Asian-American applicants score 140 points higher than white students, 270 points better than Latino students, and 450 points more than Black students.

For once, the high court is in sync with the American public. This is not Dobbs redux. A recent Economist/YouGov poll found that 65% of the U.S.—including 57% of Latinos and a plurality of Biden voters (46-44) and Blacks (47-38)—oppose race as an admissions criterion.

At the ballot box, Americans have repeatedly said “no” to racial preferences. California led the way in 1996. In 2006, Michiganders embraced the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative (MCRI), and amended the state’s constitution to bar preferential treatment based upon “race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin” in admissions, employment or public contracts.

Exit polls showed that nearly every demographic group backed the MCRI. Non-churchgoers, evangelicals, college graduates, and high school drop-outs all supported the measure.

Fourteen years later in California, Joe Biden battered Donald Trump by 30 points. Golden State voters, however, simultaneously and resoundingly rejected a measure to restore racially-conscious practices to schools and government.

That outcome emerged as a harbinger of what followed. Recent New York elections signal hostility to racially-driven education policies and increased dissatisfaction with Democrats.

In 2021, Curtis Sliwa, the Republican mayoral candidate, eked out an embarrassing 29 percent of the vote, but still managed to land “44 percent of the vote in precincts where more than half of the residents are Asian—surpassing his 40 percent of votes in white enclaves, 20 percent in majority-Hispanic districts and 6 percent in majority-Black districts.”

Then in 2022, in case anyone missed it, neo-Confederate Rep. Lee Zeldin came within a whisker of upending Kathy Hochul, New York’s accidental governor. Earlier this month, candidates that supported test-based only high school admissions punched above their weight in elections to Community Education Councils, the City’s equivalent of local school-boards.

Proponents of race-blind admissions to the City’s elite public schools flexed strong support in areas with large Asian and immigrant populations as well as in Manhattan’s wealthy precincts. Asians are now the fastest growing segment of the US population. New York may be facing its own red wave in 2024, according to Semafor.

In the scrum before the Court, Merrick Garland’s Department of Justice sided with the universities. Elizabeth Prelogar, the solicitor general, argued as an amicus on their behalf. But Main Justice failed to persuade.

“Whether the administration takes heed of Tuesday’s ruling and pivots away from its embrace of racial preferences remains to be seen. It won’t be easy.”

To be sure, “equity,” aka equality of outcome, is a touchstone for Biden-Harris. “There’s a big difference between equality and equity,” the vice-president observed during her failed presidential bid. On Inauguration Day 2021, the president issued his “Executive Order On Advancing Racial Equity and Support for Underserved Communities Through the Federal Government.”

In Joe Biden’s view, “equality of opportunity” was insufficient for the task at hand. “Systemic racism” loomed.

Whether the administration takes heed of Tuesday’s ruling and pivots away from its embrace of racial preferences remains to be seen. It won’t be easy. Think of the GOP moving away from its opposition to abortion; you get the picture. Parties don’t readily jettison orthodoxies.

Sixty-five House Democrats—from Nancy Pelosi to Hakeem Jeffries to Jamie Raskin to Ilhan Omar—lined up with Harvard and UNC. Likewise, Elizabeth Warren and 13 other Democratic senators lent their support to the schools. Brooklyn-born Chuck Schumer, the Senate’s majority leader, did not.

For the first time, a majority of Democrats (54%) now describe themselves as liberal. Graduate degree holders appear wedded to affirmative action. Identity politics is central to the party’s activist wing.

“The Supreme Court just dropped a fig leaf and opportunity into the lap of Biden & Co., although they may not see it as such. Regardless, the status quo is no longer viable.”

Regardless, in light of the changed legal landscape, Democrats and blue-chip universities ought to move toward merit and income-based admissions while striving to eliminate legacy preferences.

Name schools have big endowments. They possess the financial wherewithal to lend a hand to those climbing up the social ladder. More likely than not, their administrators have a great-grandparent or two that passed through Ellis Island.

Said differently, Dink Stover, the stereotypical WASP of Owen Johnson’s 1912 Yale novel, is keeping different company. The scions of Scarsdale and Lake Forest, like kids named Obama, Trump and Kushner, really don’t need any more boosts in the marathon of life at the expense of others. Parents, tutors, 529 plans, bankers and lawyers already occupy integral parts of their respective realities.

The Supreme Court just dropped a fig leaf and opportunity into the lap of Biden & Co., although they may not see it as such. Regardless, the status quo is no longer viable. Whether the party of FDR can meet the new reality, return to its roots and embrace class-based policies are now all open questions. The 2024 election may hang in the balance.

Adblock test (Why?)

https://news.google.com/rss/articles/CBMiUmh0dHBzOi8vd3d3LnRoZWRhaWx5YmVhc3QuY29tL2hvdy1hbWVyaWNhLWZlbGwtb3V0LW9mLWxvdmUtd2l0aC1hZmZpcm1hdGl2ZS1hY3Rpb27SAQA?oc=5

2023-06-29 17:08:50Z

Bagikan Berita Ini