Access to higher education has always been a contentious issue for millions of American families and students every year. An unequal system designed to limit the access to higher education has existed since the founding of Harvard College in 1636. So, discrimination in access to higher education is not new. However, in 1964, President Lyndon Johnson signed affirmative action, an active effort to provide employment or educational opportunities to women and racial minorities, into law. The Civil Rights Act of 1964, accompanied by Executive Order 11246, were designed to obligate businesses and educational institutions who receive federal funds to eliminate policies or practices that discriminate against women and people of color. Its goal was to acknowledge the historical and systemic forms of discrimination that have excluded women and people of color by granting institutions with flexibility and opportunities to admit these populations into employment and education. Today’s Supreme Court decision not only questioned the legality and its application within higher education, but also made a bold statement that using race as a factor (among many) for college admissions is unconstitutional.
The Supreme Court decision has delivered a significant blow to higher education’s ability to prepare an educated workforce in an increasingly diverse global society. Institutions have touted the significant gains and benefits of intentionally structuring a more racially diverse student population as leading to deeper and more meaningful classroom discussions, exposure to differences in cultures, values, and perspectives, and contributing to a more culturally competent global citizen. The ruling does not ban the consideration of race in college admissions, but it does say that its use must be extremely limited in its use. More so than it already is under the narrowly tailored standards as tested under the 2012 Fisher v. Texas case in Texas. Today’s decision threatens higher education’s ability to produce a more culturally competent and diverse citizenry, challenge the cycles of poverty, and more.
The Court has leaned toward a socioeconomic factor. Proponents of this decision have argued that socioeconomic factors will have a greater impact on diversifying and uplifting marginalized communities out of poverty and attaining more professional positions. Critics argue that this position grossly undervalues the intersectionality of race with socio-economic status and will ultimately contribute to the historical inequities that spawned the need for affirmative action.
Ultimately, this decision to place further constraints on the use of race in college admissions will likely contribute to more homogenous student and professional populations, most notably during a time of rapid globally interconnected changes across our world. It raises questions about higher education’s ability to prepare students for a more diverse and interconnected world. Higher education will have to identify new and creative ways to diversify student populations and determine their impact on educational, societal, and professional populations.
IDT does not support the Court’s decision. We view this ruling as a major setback for equity and the increasingly diverse populations across the United States. As the ripple effects impact every aspect of our lives, we stand firm in supporting organizations in pursuing fair and inclusive practices. If you would like to learn more about how IDT can support your efforts to be more inclusive and more closely reflect the rich and diverse tapestry of your community, please reach out to connect@idtstrategies.com and a member of our team will respond to you shortly.
