Reversity: Supreme Court Ruling on Affirmative Action Undermines Inclusion and Equality”

The Supreme Court ruling extends beyond the admissions policies of Harvard University and UNC, as it strikes at the core of inclusion for marginalized communities within American democracy. By effectively outlawing the consideration of race in university admissions, except for military academies, the Court has created a disturbing exception that erodes progress towards a more inclusive and equal society. This decision not only raises questions about the commitment to diversity and equal opportunity but also perpetuates structural injustices.

In their dissent, both Justice Sotomayor and Justice Jackson expressed strong criticism of the majority’s decision, particularly regarding the exception made for military academies. Justice Jackson eloquently highlighted the majority’s implication that racial diversity is only worth preserving in the context of preparing underrepresented minorities for war, rather than nurturing their success in other areas such as corporate boardrooms. This distinction reveals a troubling unequal treatment of racial diversity in different spheres of society.

The decision, Justice Sotomayor wrote, “subverts the constitutional guarantee of equal protection by further entrenching racial inequality in education, the very foundation of our democratic government and pluralistic society.”

Justice Sotomayor argued that the majority’s vision of race neutrality “will entrench racial segregation in higher education because racial inequality will persist so long as it is ignored.”

But despite her scathing language, Justice Sotomayor ended on a defiant note, writing that despite the court’s actions, “society’s progress toward equality cannot be permanently halted.”

“The pursuit of racial diversity will go on,” she wrote. “Although the Court has stripped out almost all uses of race in college admissions, universities can and should continue to use all available tools to meet society’s needs for diversity in education.”

The Promise of Affirmative Action

Affirmative action policies were initially introduced as a means to address historical and systemic discrimination against minority groups in the United States. The aim was to promote equal opportunities and to level the playing field for those who have historically been marginalized. Affirmative action has been a crucial tool in diversifying educational institutions and workplaces, fostering inclusive environments, and providing marginalized communities with access to opportunities they might have otherwise been denied.

Ignoring Ongoing Structural Biases

The Supreme Court’s decision to reverse affirmative action measures disregards the pervasive structural and institutional biases that continue to affect marginalized communities. These biases stem from a long history of discrimination, unequal access to resources, and systemic barriers that hinder progress for certain groups. While progress has been made, significant disparities still exist today. African Americans, Hispanic Americans, and Native Americans, among other minority groups, face higher rates of poverty, limited access to quality education, and reduced social mobility compared to their white counterparts.

The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment requires states to practice equal protection, forbidding distinctions based on irrelevant differences. However, the historical impact of slavery, Jim Crow segregation, the GI Bill, and biases in housing and education must be considered. African Americans have not historically received equal protection under the law, and affirmative action seeks to address these historical injustices by creating a more equitable society.

Ketanji Brown Jackson, wrote in her dissent that “it would be deeply unfortunate if the Equal Protection Clause actually demanded this perverse, ahistorical, and counterproductive outcome.”

“To impose this result in that Clause’s name when it requires no such thing, and to thereby obstruct our collective progress toward the full realization of the Clause’s promise, is truly a tragedy for us all,” she wrote.

Pipeline Development and Defending Diversity

Affirmative action has played a critical role in accelerating the development of a diverse pipeline in various career and professional fields. It recognizes the importance of representation and the value of diverse perspectives, ultimately benefiting society as a whole. The decision to reverse affirmative action threatens this progress, hindering opportunities for marginalized individuals and perpetuating existing disparities.

Despite Justice Roberts introducing the notion that schools can still consider an applicant’s discussion of how race affected their life in an essay, it is important to recognize that this so-called “holistic review” was already a requirement under the precedents that have now been effectively overturned. This leaves room for potential legal disputes and further exacerbates the uncertainty surrounding admissions policies, potentially hindering progress towards equitable representation.

Ethical Decision-making

Moreover, recent revelations about the close relationships between Justices Thomas, Alito, and Roberts with extreme conservative lobbyists raise concerns about their objectivity in making important public policy decisions. The personal financial benefits gained by them and their families through these relationships cast doubt on their impartiality and their ability to prioritize the greater good.

Far Right Pushback and Attacks on Corporations

In addition, organizations like AmericaFirstLegal, led by conservative Trump advisor Steven Miller, have indicated their intent to continue their efforts beyond this decision. Their focus on attacking corporations that support diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives underscores a coordinated assault on progress. Targeting companies such as Nordstrom, Amazon, Starbucks, and Alaska Airlines, these efforts pose a significant threat to the advancement of inclusivity and equal opportunity.

Pushback by another name: Reversity

This alarming development aligns with the concept of “Reversity,” which I discussed in my chapter titled “Inclusive Leadership in Disruptive and Polarizing Times” within the book “Inclusive Leadership: Transforming Diverse Lives, Workplaces, and Societies” by Ferdman, Prime, and Reggio. “Reversity” encapsulates the tactics of adversity and perversity employed to instill fear and animosity towards diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts, hindering progress and perpetuating inequality.

Actions to Consider

In the face of these challenges, there are suggested actions to combat this attack on DEI and promote genuine inclusion:

Advocate for legislative action: Call upon lawmakers to enact legislation that safeguards diversity, equity, and inclusion, providing institutions with the necessary tools and flexibility to consider race as one factor among many in pursuit of a diverse student body.

Strengthen grassroots movements: Support community-led initiatives that promote inclusivity and challenge systemic discrimination. Collaborate with local organizations, engage in dialogue, and raise awareness about the importance of diversity and equal opportunity.

Reinforce corporate commitment: Encourage corporations to stand firm in their support for DEI initiatives. Urge them to resist pressure from anti-diversity campaigns and reaffirm their commitment to fostering inclusive workplaces and communities.

Engage in public discourse: Participate in public discussions surrounding the ruling and broader issues of systemic discrimination and inequality. Utilize various platforms to challenge misconceptions and advocate for the benefits of diversity and inclusion.

Support legal challenges: Provide support to organizations and individuals pursuing legal avenues to challenge discriminatory policies. This support can range from financial resources to volunteering or amplifying their efforts through social networks.

By taking these actions, individuals and communities can unite to combat the attack on diversity, equity, and inclusion. Together, we can strive towards a society that values and embraces the richness of human experiences, ensuring equal opportunities for all.

In conclusion, the recent Supreme Court ruling represents a setback in our collective pursuit of a more inclusive society. The implications of this decision, coupled with the connections between certain justices and conservative lobbyists, raise valid concerns about the direction of our democracy.

It is imperative that we continue to advocate for diversity, equity, and inclusion, even in the face of adversity. Through legislative action, grassroots movements, reinforcement of corporate commitment, public discourse, and support for legal challenges, we can strive towards a more just and equitable future.

Effenus Henderson