To this end, we are grateful for the students and organizers who, despite the odds, rallied in defense of diversity in higher education.Īs the next application cycle approaches, Harvard must radically reimagine its methods of cultivating diversity in its student body - this time, without the glaring gaps. In many regards, the decision was inevitable - almost preordained. Given the Supreme Court’s conservative posse, race-conscious admissions policies were living on borrowed time. But make no mistake: Harvard’s lackluster policies are not to blame for the recent ruling, and the Court’s decision does not at all undermine the importance of a racially diverse student body. Some of these problems provided fodder for the Court’s majority to critique Harvard’s admission process, and to dismiss affirmative action as a reasonable policy to achieve diversity in higher education. Instead, published statistics about socioeconomic diversity are virtually nonexistent we are forced to rely on unofficial counts that suggest the school is epically failing, like economist Raj Chetty’s finding that Harvard had 23 times as many higher-income students as lower-income students at the turn of the millennium. This underrepresentation of a historically marginalized sub-group showcases Harvard’s ignorance of the necessary reparative element of affirmative action in a country with enduring systemic racial inequalities in education.Īnd then there’s the socioeconomic diversity problem: If Harvard was truly sincere about cultivating a diverse student body, it would transparently and vocally ensure that students come from varied economic backgrounds. Given this coarse-toothed categorization, it’s not surprising that Generational African Americans may make up as little as 10 percent of Black students at Harvard - a statistic much grimmer than the topline figure that Black students represent 15.3 percent of students in the Class of 2027. No racial group is a monolith these six labels are insufficient to capture the varied experiences of the individuals classified under them. We find ourselves in agreement with the Court’s majority opinion on the single point - a narrow point of alignment within a decision that we otherwise find to be reeking of a repulsive “let-them-eat-cake obliviousness” to systemic racism, per Associate Justice Ketanji Brown-Jackson ’92 - that this method of consideration is inadequate. Harvard’s now-unconstitutional consideration of race in admissions involved measuring the student body using six categories. We are forced to confront the question: How preciously does Harvard actually prize diversity? The Court’s total pivot on Harvard’s admissions policies lays bare the issues that have always existed within our University’s implementation of affirmative action. This contrasts with the Court’s precedents allowing universities to consider applicants’ race in admissions decisions - precedents in which justices cited Harvard’s admissions system as an exemplary model. President & Fellows of Harvard College holds that the admission processes at Harvard and the University of North Carolina violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. The Court’s majority opinion in Students for Fair Admissions Inc. A loss for our University, a loss for progress, and a loss for our nation resound in the aftermath of this decision. We now find ourselves in a state of utter post-affirmative action loss. After almost a decade of litigation pitting two of the oldest universities in the country against an organization hell-bent on ending race-based affirmative action, the Supreme Court has spoken: Race-conscious admissions in higher education are over.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |