Image via Getty Images

 

By: Dorayn Murphy, Staff Writer 

 

Thursday, The Supreme Court ruled the consideration of race in college admission processes unconstitutional. The decision will lead to the effective end of affirmative action programs at all universities within the next five years.

 

The court ruled that admission programs at both Harvard and the University of North Carolina violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution. The votes totaled to 6-3 in the case against UNC and 6-2 in the case against Harvard, in which Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson recused herself due to former ties to the institution.

 

Justice Jackson, the only Black woman on the court, is a Harvard alumna who received her bachelor’s and law degrees from the university. Jackson later served on the school’s board of overseers; a role which did not directly involve student admissions but did advise Harvard’s strategic priorities. 

 

With this decision drawing mixed reactions, The Maroon Tiger spoke to current Black Ivy League students on what does the SCOTUS ruling means to them.

 

“I believe that the ruling reveals a general misunderstanding of the way in which groups are benefiting from affirmative action. Affirmative action has been known to assist people of color from backgrounds where they may have not had an equal opportunity to succeed while the legacy policy allows the rich to simply get richer.” said Princeton University sophomore, Tolu Ariyo.

 

The Maroon Tiger spoke with student government leaders in the AUC to receive their input on the court’s ruling.

 

“The issue of education has been a race issue since the timing of segregation African Americans have been dealing with, but we must continue to take significant leaps and strive. For the sake of our education, protest, proliferate, and progress,” said Darion Johnson, Morehouse 92nd SGA Vice President.

 

This decision scraps decades of precedent erasing substantial progress implemented by the Civil Rights Movement.

 

In 1978, during the ruling of Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, the court ruled that affirmative action programs can be implemented to combat historic discrimination against African Americans and other minorities. In 2003, Grutter v. Bollinger ruled universities may consider race in efforts to foster diverse campuses.

 

Chief Justice John Roberts, representing the conservative court majority wrote that both admission programs in question “lack objectives warranting race, employ race in a negative manner, involve racial stereotyping, and lack meaningful end points”.

 

Affirmative action programs exist as an effort to redress historic injustices or discrimination towards a particular race. Jim Crow Laws economically disadvantaged African Americans for generations, therefore a representative government is ethically responsible to supplement rehabilitation.

 

As a result of national affirmative action programs, minority students have been enrolled at highly selective institutions at record numbers. In 2020, the black student body at Harvard University was 562 more than enrolled in 2012. 

 

Students from low-income communities have also excelled at competitive opportunities that they otherwise may have been overlooked for.

 

Students who enroll through affirmative action programs and graduate gain more access to high paying jobs or secondary education for their career. According to Forbes, As of 2020, 53% of black college graduates were employed full-time after graduation; roughly 20% were enrolled in professional schools of business, law, or medicine. 

 

This allows minority students the opportunity to prove they belong in their academic environment, and compete in regard to their peers with higher grades and test scores.

 

Zach Bleemer, an incoming assistant professor of economics at Princeton University, sat  with NPR to discuss a ban on affirmative action programs by studying the results of California passing Prop 209 in 1996. California’s most selective universities, Berkley and UCLA, with a combined 10% acceptance rate, saw an immediate 40% decrease in Black and Hispanic enrollment. Less selective schools saw no net change in enrollment.

 

Bleemer states those who could not receive affirmative action were less likely to earn degree, less engaged in STEM fields, and earned 5% less than peers who attended more selective Institutions.

 

Highly selective institutions provided greater value to the disadvantaged students benefiting from affirmative action programs than the Asian and white students who took their place.

 

HBCUs across the nation are dedicated to the empowerment and education of Black students for over a century. “Historically Black colleges and universities such as Morehouse College are unparalleled in their track records of producing individuals who have gone on to lead in every sector of our society.” Morehouse College 12th President David A. Thomas Ph.D. 

 

“HBCUs have committed themselves to train Black intellectuals and promote critical thinking within the Black community. Although this is a sad day for the overall condition of the nation, it serves to remind the country that HBCUs exist and their importance to our communities,” said Mekhi Perrin, Morehouse 92nd SGA President.

 

We also asked the student representatives how this recent court decision impacts the value of HBCUs in the Black community.

 

“HBCUs must step in to represent many Blacks worldwide, increasing enrollment while fighting for extra and equal resources. Society must invest in HBCUs like never before; let’s turn the negative into a positive.” Johnson said.

 

“I believe that this is an opportunity for HBCUs to reintroduce themselves to the general consciousness of the country. The value of our institutions now will not only consist of our prioritized education of Black experiences, but also as the premier example of what a modern style of education can/should look like,” Perrin said.

 

Copy Edited by: Auzzy Byrdsell, Editor in Chief