Affirmative Action Challenged in the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court heard arguments on Monday regarding the continuation of affirmative action in higher education
Two weeks ago, Santa Clara President Julie Sullivan and Vice President for Enrollment Management Eva Blaco Masias wrote an op-ed in The Mercury News stressing the importance of affirmative action for the university.
"In practice, colleges’ limited consideration of race is the opposite of discrimination: It is part of a complex, holistic approach that aims (among many things) to ensure that qualified and promising students from both advantaged and disadvantaged backgrounds form our campus communities,” wrote Sullivan and Masias. “Uniting students from all walks of life, with unique lived experiences that always intersect with race, is essential to fostering dialogue, discourse and inquiry that deepen our understanding of the world and human identities."
Shortly thereafter, on Monday, Oct. 31, lawyers appeared in the Supreme Court to present arguments regarding affirmative action policies. The case is in regards to the University of North Carolina and Harvard University, but the decision may be wide in its scope.
If the Supreme Court were to throw out race-based college admissions (i.e., affirmative action), private and public universities would no longer be able to consider race during enrollment processes. Many universities, including Santa Clara, currently consider an applicant’s race during the admissions process.
The importance of diversity at Santa Clara is emphasized by the Office of Multicultural Learning (OML). Grace Evans, a student inclusion educator, explained the role of the Office of Multicultural Learning and its relation to race-conscious admission processes.
“OML's mission is to celebrate differences and the whole person, as is the tradition of Santa Clara’s style of Jesuit education,” said Evans. “Like OML's mission, affirmative action-related policies celebrate difference, recognizing that there is beauty in diversity and that universities should be able to consider sex, gender, race and ethnicity in admissions decisions.”
The lawyers presenting the arguments and other opponents of the policy believe that affirmative action will be prohibited because of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This title prohibits discrimination on the “basis of race, color, national origin, sex, or religion.”
The issue of affirmative action has been brought to the Supreme Court twice in the past six years and is already prohibited in nine states. In 1996, California voters passed Proposition 209, which banned public institutions from considering race in admission and hiring processes. In 2020, California voters rejected Proposition 16 by a wide margin, dismissing the attempt to overturn Proposition 209.
Most recently, some conservative Supreme Court justices voiced their opinions against affirmative action, while the three remaining liberal justices argued in favor of its continuation.
Justice Samuel Alito opposes race-conscious policies, comparing affirmative action to a person starting a race “five yards closer to the finish line.” Justice Elena Kagan emphasized the policies’ importance by referring to universities as “pipelines to leadership in our society.”
Regardless of the constitutionality of affirmative action processes, proponents of these policies express concern over a potential lack of diversity on college campuses.
“As a Student Inclusion Educator, I see that Santa Clara as a whole tries to celebrate diversity,” said Evans. “And I believe that the Supreme Court decisions in Students for Fair Admission. v. Harvard and Students for Fair Admission v. University of North Carolina could affect the demographics and education of Santa Clara’s student body in a way that makes it difficult for OML to do its job.”
However, Evans affirmed that, regardless of the Supreme Court’s decision, OML will still host events and educate the SCU community to celebrate diversity and promote diversity, equity, inclusion and belonging.