Shake America! No longer considering racial factors, race | America | factors

Breaking the principle of "following precedents" in the history of American law is a distinctive feature of the United States Supreme Court, where conservatives currently have an overwhelming 6:3 advantage, and has a profound impact on the direction of American society.

On June 29, following the overturning of the precedent established in 1973 by the United States Constitution to protect women's right to abortion, the Supreme Court overturned the 1978 precedent of taking "affirmative action" in college admissions, with limited consideration of racial factors, and demanded that American college admissions must use the "color blind" standard and treat students of all skin colors equally.

Article | Xu Jianmei, Researcher of Outlook Think Tank in Houston

Source | Outlook Think Tank

1

"Judicial institutions should not select winners and losers based on skin color"

In 1978, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled in the Board of Directors v. Buck case at the University of California, allowing American universities to take "affirmative action" by prohibiting racial quotas in admissions but allowing for limited consideration of racial factors to achieve diversity in campus student groups, and considering it a "convincing national interest" that met the equal protection provisions of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution. The Federal Supreme Court followed this precedent in two subsequent similar lawsuits.

S. Federal Supreme Court. Photo: Photo by Xinhua News Agency reporter Liu Jie

45 years later, in a similar admissions lawsuit against Harvard University and the University of North Carolina, six conservative justices ruled that the two schools, relying on "affirmative action" to consider racial factors in admissions, lacked sufficient targeting and measurable goals, and thus inevitably used racial factors in a negative manner, violating the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution.

According to this ruling, in the future, American universities, whether public or private, cannot consider racial factors when admitting students. In other words, in the future, racial factors cannot be used as a "bonus" for certain ethnic group applicants or a "deduction" for other ethnic group students in American university admissions. This enrollment policy does not involve the admission of international students.

Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in his ruling that "an individual's race should never be used to have a negative impact on them.". He said that "eliminating racial discrimination means eliminating all discrimination against all races... Judicial institutions should not select winners and losers based on skin color. Any and all considerations of racial factors, no matter how limited, go beyond the scope of the law.". He also opposes using affirmative action to "compensate for the impact of past social discrimination," believing that the latter can be infinitely traced and does not constitute a convincing public interest.

Roberts also advocates that considering racial factors in admissions can deepen irrational racial stereotypes, and the racial classification of applicants is not precise, such as the overly broad distinction between Asians and Latinos. Conservative Justice Neil Gossac raised similar questions about the white race, arguing that the "racial" classification of the two schools is based on inconsistent stereotypes and violates the Civil Rights Act. Gosage said that in the federal government's racial classification, the "white" category includes all individuals from "Europe, Asia west of India, and North Africa.".

Conservative Justice Clarence Thomas, the second black Supreme Court judge in American history, has always believed that affirmative action brings shame to ethnic minorities. He supported Roberts' viewpoint, emphasizing once again that everyone is equal before the law, and that "the solution to America's racial problems cannot come from policies based on 'affirmative action' or other concepts of fairness... racism cannot be eliminated through different or more forms of racism.".

Three liberal justices vehemently expressed strong opposition. The first black female judge, Katangi Brown Jackson, wrote in her dissent letter that this ruling is disconnected from key scenes in American real life. She said that there is a "huge racial gap" in real life in the United States, and the debate over "affirmative action" confuses history and reality in countless ways... but the answer is simple: our country has never been a color blind country

Liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor criticized conservative justices for "subverting the status quo" based on policy preferences that ignore the reality of race in the United States. This ruling "consolidates the superficial rules of 'color blindness' into constitutional principles... further consolidating racial inequality in the field of education.". "The destructive impact of this ruling cannot be overemphasized."

It should be pointed out that this ruling has not blocked all avenues for considering racial factors in American university admissions, and still leaves two major areas for "equality".

One reason is that the ruling does not apply to US military academies such as West Point, as racial diversity involves national security issues in the context of military training, and the composition of military officers should reflect the diversity of ordinary soldiers who undertake most combat tasks. Military academies taking affirmative action during enrollment have potential unique interests.

This statement was sharply mocked by liberal Justice Jackson: "The bottom line conclusion drawn by the court is that racial diversity is worth potential preservation only when it is possible to prepare for the victory of African Americans and other underrepresented minority groups in the bunker, rather than focusing on enabling them to gain a place in the board through higher education."

The second is to allow universities to freely consider the applicant's discussion on how race affects their life, which means that if students discuss the impact of ethnic identity on themselves in application documents or interviews, universities can consider it during admission, but it must be evaluated based on individual experience, not race. American media immediately interpreted it this way: "In short, as long as students are allowed to tell their personal stories of racism, race will be taken into consideration in the enrollment process."

Is that really the case? For a long time, the enrollment process of elite universities in the United States has always stimulated some students to distort their identities and shape images that may increase admission opportunities. It is worth continuously observing how this ruling will affect the application writing of students who aspire to enter elite universities, and what effects it will have.

2

The polarization of public opinion and the complexity of public opinion

The ruling shook the United States, but it was not a shock. During Trump's presidency, the United States Supreme Court formed an overwhelmingly conservative majority. The overturning of precedents, from the constitutional protection of women's right to abortion to the "affirmative action" in university enrollment, is an predictable result of this pattern. Many higher education institutions and organizations in the United States have already started preparing in advance.

It is not surprising that as a controversial issue that has long torn apart American society and bipartisan politics, the ruling has sparked polarized statements from conservative and liberal, Republican and Democratic factions in the United States. Trump cheered, "This is a great day for the United States." Democratic President Biden expressed "strong, strong disagreement," and "this ruling cannot be made the final ruling.".

The atmosphere in the public opinion field is the same. The conservative flagship media, The Wall Street Journal, praised this milestone ruling as a significant step for the United States to break away from institutionalized racial balkanization. The liberal media, The Washington Post, condemned the Supreme Court for abandoning the "half century long experiment to promote campus diversity.".

But the overall attitude of the American public towards affirmative action may not be as polarized as politicians and the media have shown. Most polls conducted so far this year show that over half of Americans believe that race should not be a factor in college admissions. The latest poll by ABC and Ipsos shows that 52% of American voters support the Supreme Court's ruling, while opponents only account for 32%.

However, there are significant differences in the perspectives of different races. In this poll, 60% of white people and 58% of Asian people support the ruling, with Latinx support and opposition rates of 40% each. The African Americans who have benefited the most from the "affirmative action" are the only ethnic group with over half opposing the ruling.

According to a poll conducted by the Pew Research Center in early June, about 40% of young Americans under the age of 30 each support and oppose racial considerations in college admissions, with 20% uncertain. Among the population aged 30 to 49, there are more opponents than supporters. Nearly 60% of people aged 50 and above oppose it. In addition, the higher the education level, the higher the proportion of people who support considering racial factors, and vice versa.

However, polls can only be used as a reference, and there are also many polls with opposite results. According to a May poll by the Associated Press National Center for Public Opinion at the University of Chicago, 63% of American adults support universities considering racial factors in their admissions process. According to a comprehensive analysis of multiple survey results by the 538 poll website, the views of the American public on "affirmative action" are "more subtle and complex" than their treatment of women's abortion rights, and largely depend on the way the survey questions are raised, making it "difficult to accurately predict".

Regarding the "equal rights action" in college enrollment, there are not only obvious ethnic differences, but also internal differences within the Democratic Party. Many Democrats question the promoting effect of affirmative action on campus diversity and social equity in the United States. As early as the 1990s, then President Clinton advocated that "affirmative action" should not be ended but should be modified. The Democratic stronghold of California banned college admissions considering racial factors in 1996, and in 2020, the state voted in a referendum. As a result, California voters opposed the restoration of affirmative action with 57% of support.

In various polls, Americans generally recognize the importance of diversity in university campuses, but even those who support racial considerations in admissions rarely believe that such considerations should play a significant role in the admissions process. In a 2003 ruling, the Supreme Court of the United States proposed that university admissions should not be subject to indefinite "affirmative action" and will no longer be necessary after 25 years, with cancellation by 2028. In other words, this ruling was only advanced by 5 years.

3

Why is the "equal rights action" in universities criticized

Objectively speaking, there have been many problems with the implementation of affirmative action in the enrollment practice of American universities.

Harvard University Campus, Cambridge, Massachusetts, United States. Image: Xinhua Social Development

Firstly, as Roberts pointed out in his ruling, admissions based on racial factors are "suspected of an offensive and insulting assumption that students of a specific race are considered similar due to their racial similarity," which inevitably deepens the stereotype that individuals are seen as products of their race, and "this prejudice will only cause sustained harm.". The most important reason for prohibiting racial classification is that it does not judge a person based on their achievements and basic qualities, which undermines their dignity and value.

In this regard, Asians, who have always been regarded as "model minorities" by American society, are the most typical victim group. Asian applicants have performed excellently in both academic and extracurricular activities, but have consistently received low scores in Harvard's personality trait assessment. Duke University economist Peter Asidicono conducted a thorough study of Harvard's rating process for applicants in the five main categories of "academic, extracurricular, sports, personal, and overall" and found that Asians are more likely to achieve lower personality scores than black or Latino students, a phenomenon known as "punishment for Asian Americans.".

Obviously, this is unfounded racial prejudice, which is not only unfair, but also brings an unbearable learning burden to many Asian students. In 2018, when the discrimination against Asians case in Harvard's admissions process was tried by the federal district court, Uncle Ku went to Harvard for an interview. Some Harvard Asian students expressed support for affirmative action, but also admitted that they felt uncomfortable with the low ratings of Asian individuals in the Harvard admissions process.

After all, everyone, regardless of skin color or background, longs to be treated as a unique person and receive fair treatment. As Conservative Justice Clarence Thomas once said in this ruling, "Everyone is the sum of their unique experiences, challenges, and achievements. What matters is not the obstacles they face, but how they choose to face them. Their race should not be responsible for everything that happens in their lives. On the contrary, completely excluding personal choices based on individual skin color is a short-sighted worldview that is tantamount to racial determinism.".

Secondly, it is also widely criticized that the purpose of "affirmative action" was originally to increase the number of African American, Latino and other minority students in elite universities. However, for a long time, a large number of ethnic minority students who enter elite universities due to racial factors have superior socio-economic backgrounds. The "affirmative action" has been particularly criticized as a shortcut for the next generation of wealthy African American families to enter prestigious schools in the United States. Taking Harvard as an example, a study has shown that 71% of African American, Latino, and Native American students admitted to Harvard come from the upper middle class, and their family income is higher than the median in the United States. Richard Sander, a law professor at the University of California, Los Angeles, criticized that universities creating "false diversity" by admitting students based on racial classification.

The consideration of racial factors in college admissions is considered beneficial for African American and Latino students, but not for high performing white and Chinese students. This is an important background for white and Chinese groups to constantly file targeted lawsuits. In the early days, lawsuits were filed by white and Jewish students. In recent years, Chinese Americans have become the main force in lawsuits with the help of white lawyers and conservative groups seeking the perfect victims. The efforts of Chinese opposition have to some extent affected the relationship between Chinese and African Americans.

The consideration of racial factors in college admissions has also become a major driving force for non Chinese Asian Americans to support Asian segmentation. The Federal Supreme Court's ruling also believes that when universities consider racial factors, they categorize "all Asian students" and ignore the issue of "whether South or East Asian students are sufficiently representative".

From the writing of student application documents to the enrollment policies and processes of universities, rulings are expected to have an immediate impact. However, in the future, American university admissions will no longer consider racial factors and are considered to be most favorable for white students and least favorable for African American students. The impact on Chinese students is probably still to be observed.

In the lawsuit, the plaintiff's fair admission organization cited internal documents from Harvard stating that if Harvard adheres to a race neutral admission policy that only focuses on academia, more than half of the new students may be Asian. However, many universities in the United States have stopped requiring students to provide standardized exam scores such as the SAT in recent years, and have increasingly weakened their consideration of grades, placing more emphasis on individual experiences and overall performance of students.

In this context, the ruling of the Supreme Court of the United States may not necessarily be a significant advantage for Chinese students who are striving to enter prestigious schools in the United States. Many people are concerned that in the future, the enrollment of elite universities in the United States may be more opaque and arbitrary than before.

four

The Long Wave of Political and Social Changes

There are two important observations regarding the social impact of this ruling.

One is the laws and precedents related to "affirmative action", which was a significant achievement of the civil rights movement in the 1960s and 1970s. For decades, not only have racial factors been taken into consideration in college admissions, but the US government and many businesses have also placed increasing emphasis on promoting diversity, fairness, and inclusiveness in the workplace during recruitment and promotion.

Following the same legal logic, the decision to cancel affirmative action will inevitably go beyond the field of higher education and affect various aspects of the US economy and social life. Many legal professionals are concerned that companies may face more challenges in making diversified recruitment and promotion decisions in the future. Google, General Electric and other companies have warned that this ruling will have a ripple effect, damaging the channels for producing "high-quality future industrial and business leaders.". Harvard Law Professor Randall Kennedy predicts that in the next 30 years, the United States will continue to debate about this.

Some American education professionals also pointed out that this ruling has added urgency to the reform of primary and secondary education in the United States. There is a significant gap in education levels among different ethnic groups and social classes in the United States. Experts predict that with the end of affirmative action in college admissions, the proportion of black, Hispanic, and Native American students in elite universities in the United States will significantly decrease in the coming years. To change this situation, we must start from primary and secondary schools, and even early childhood education.

Secondly, the young population in the United States is becoming increasingly diverse. According to data from the National Center for Education Statistics, for the first time last year, people of color became the majority of high school graduates in the United States. However, in the decades of implementing affirmative action in traditional prestigious schools in the United States, white students have also firmly occupied the majority. A common view among liberals is that no longer considering racial factors in admissions may widen the gap between a more diverse America and less diverse elite universities, thereby exacerbating social tension.

The affirmative action can be traced back to the executive orders issued by Democratic Presidents John F. Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson in the 1960s, when the white to black ratio in the United States was approximately 7:1. But half a century later, there was a fundamental change in the population structure of the United States, and in the near future, white people would even lose their status as the majority, which directly shook the social foundation of affirmative action.

Regarding affirmative action, three liberal justices emphasized in their dissenting letters that the ruling of conservative justices overlooks racial reality, weakens the inclusiveness of the American system, and may "dangerously widen the gap between rapidly changing American society and a leadership class with a disproportionate white population.". According to an article in Atlantic Monthly, this ruling concerns the struggle between the older generation of white Americans and the more diverse younger generation of Americans for control of the country's direction.

Conservative Justice Clarence Thomas countered that affirmative action was actually empowering privileged elites to classify races, allowing various ethnic groups to confront each other and move towards a utopian vision. Historically, such social movements have ended in disastrous outcomes.

At the political level, this ruling by the Federal Supreme Court, along with the next day's ruling on student loan relief, is widely believed to be a powerful tool for the Democratic Party to mobilize voters in the 2024 election. As Democratic polling expert Cornell Belcher said, the Supreme Court's rulings have "done more to help the Democratic Party mobilize people of color and young people than any policy or legislation the Democratic Party claims can push Congress through.".

This is also related to the evolution of the voter base between the two parties in the United States. In the 21st century, the Democratic Party is increasingly becoming the "big tent" party, with a younger generation of diverse races and cultures considered to be "becoming the cornerstone of the Democratic Party's political alliance", while the Republican Party appears to be "introverted" and Trump oriented, with the older generation of predominantly white American voters becoming the core vote holders.

After the Federal Supreme Court passed legislation in the 1970s to protect the right to abortion through the constitution, the two major issues of abortion and equality, along with the restructuring of the composition of the Supreme Court justices, became the "cause" touted by the Republican Party and a weapon for mobilizing voters. Feng Shui takes turns, and in the future, these will also become the cause and campaign tool of the Democratic Party.

Perhaps not only are there cycles and long cycles in the economy, but also in the political and social changes in the United States.

What left a deep impression on Uncle Ku was that during the 2016 election, many liberals raised such questions. From same-sex marriage to the Paris Climate Agreement, the goals of the progressive cause seemed to have been achieved. But since Trump took office, the United States has undergone a new cycle of political and social change that swings to the right.

However, history can only rhyme but cannot be repeated, and its way forward is often to take two steps forward and one step backward. The current rightward swing cycle in the United States is also a compilation and digestion of the previous leftward swing. The game between the two parties and many issues can be considered and observed within this framework.