Conservatives, as a rule, loathe affirmative action. Their opposition stems in part from their abhorrence of government itself and its intervention in any number of issues, from education to so-called entitlements, though they are hardly reticent about imposing their moral views on people’s bedroom behavior. The more sinister part of their opposition is surely racism; they prefer whiteness against color.
So, it appears that conservatives may get their wish as the U.S. Supreme Court takes up the case of Abigail Fisher, who sued the University of Texas for racial discrimination. Since the court had previously allowed for the use of race in a college’s admission selections, the mere fact that the court has placed Ms. Fisher’s case on its docket can mean only one thing: the court will reverse itself. It’s highly unlikely the court would consider the matter only to affirm its previous decision, since refusing the case would have the same effect.
Texas has an unusual admission’s policy. Any high school student graduating in the top ten percent of his or her class can attend the state’s public colleges and universities. Ms. Fisher, who is white, did not. She was therefore placed in a pool in which race is a factor for admissions. But when she was passed over by the University of Texas, she sued, charging that she was denied entrance because of race.
The complexion of the current court is decidedly conservative. It will be even more so since Justice Elena Kagan has recused herself, likely because as Obama’s solicitor general she was involved in the appellate process, according to the New York Times. Moreover, the court’s frequent swing vote belongs to Justice Kennedy, who, as the Times points out, has never voted to uphold an affirmative action policy. The numbers, then, are five against race-based policies and three in favor.
The Times suggests that this case, Fisher v. University of Texas, may have limited effect, even if the court rules in her behalf, which it is expected to do. However, as we learned from the Citizens United case, this court has no compunction about expanding its reach beyond the rather narrow issue at hand. Indeed, its ruling in the latter upended a hundred years of precedent regarding congressional restrictions on campaign finance.
It was Martin Luther King’s dream that we would eventually become a society that judged people by the “content of their character” rather than on the “color of their skin.” Conservatives, including those on the Supreme Court, have turned round that message, using it to preserve preferential treatment of white citizens.
Affirmative action policies were designed to compensate for generations of racial oppression, whites over people of color. The policy makers assumed that exclusive reliance on merit (e.g., GPA, SAT scores) would effectively reduce opportunities for non-white races. Implicit in this assumption was that years of oppression had denied to people of color those conditions that nurtured or enhanced childhood learning, conditions enjoyed almost exclusively by whites.* By taking affirmative action to redress race-based inequities, policy makers and courts hoped to diversify post-academic achievement.
With the court’s expected decision on Fisher v. University of Texas, admission policies at most, if not all, levels will be devoid of racial considerations. Color will no longer matter, thus perverting Dr. King’s dream.
____________
* It does not follow that no white children suffer from impoverished conditions that prevent above-average academic performance. Indeed, in absolute numbers, more Caucasians live in poverty than do African Americans or Latinos.
