RORY RALSTON
Special to The Denisonian
This piece of writing is not written to dismiss or caricature those who oppose affirmative action, but rather to examine it carefully.
Many arguments against race-conscious admissions at the surface level appear logical, particularly when framed in terms of neutrality, merit, and fairness. However, after further evaluation alongside empirical evidence, historical context, and educational outcomes, the foundation of these assumptions begins to crumble.
Because higher education shapes everyone’s lives in some capacity, the debate over affirmative action should not be reduced to partisan lines. My hope is not for the reader to agree without question, but to reflect on their existing perspective and logic regarding affirmative action and see whether it still holds up after deeper examination.
On June 29, 2023, the Supreme Court’s decision in Students for Fair Admissions v. President and Fellows of Harvard College and SFFA v. UNC did not just rule on a pair of admissions cases; it reshaped diversity and racial equality in American education. This 6-3 ruling ended race-conscious admissions, known as affirmative action, overturning four decades of precedent. The issue centers on how higher education uses race as one factor in admissions to promote diversity. In the majority opinion, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. argued that the Equal Protection Clause is “colorblind” and that any racial preference, even as a “plus factor,” creates an unconstitutional advantage over other applicants.
SFFA stemmed from Harvard and the University of North Carolina, two institutions that took race into account as one part of their admissions process. Students for Fair Admissions asserted that these programs violated Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
While lower courts found these admissions practices permissible, the Supreme Court ruled otherwise. The Court argued that the universities failed to operate their programs in a manner sufficiently measurable for judicial review and lacked a logical endpoint. It also claimed that affirmative action would unavoidably negatively employ race.
At the same time, the Court stated that universities may still consider an applicant’s discussion of how race affected their life, so long as it is tied to a quality of character or ability. In effect, the majority rejected race-conscious admissions while allowing race to be discussed indirectly.
Justice Roberts’ opinion relied on a colorblind view of the Constitution. He used Brown v. Board of Education to argue that education must be made available to all on equal terms and that race cannot be used as a factor in providing opportunities. He also referenced Grutter v. Bollinger, which upheld the limited use of race in admissions but required that such policies eventually end. Roberts argued that because universities could not specify when race-based admissions would no longer be necessary, they failed to meet this requirement.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s dissent pushes back on this interpretation. She argues that the Court’s reading of Brown is revisionist and ignores the historical context of racial inequality. She also clarifies that Grutter did not impose a fixed expiration date but instead required universities to assess whether race-conscious policies remained necessary. She states that the Court’s holding is based on the fiction that racial inequality has a predictable cutoff date and that equality is an ongoing project in a society where racial inequality persists. Through this lens, a colorblind interpretation ignores the systemic racism that continues to shape educational access.
The two sides of this issue offer different interpretations of equality and fairness. Supporters of SFFA argue that racial classifications in admissions are unfair and that merit has been undermined. On the other hand, Harvard and UNC argue that race-conscious admissions are necessary to create a genuinely diverse learning environment. They point to research showing that diversity benefits all students and that not everyone has equal access to opportunity.
Empirical evidence also challenges the assumption that race-neutral approaches can achieve diversity. After California banned race-conscious admissions, minority representation at selective universities such as Berkeley declined significantly. California demonstrates that removing race from admissions does not eliminate inequality; it merely reflects it. These outcomes raise a central question: if race-neutral alternatives fail and there is no clear evidence of discrimination, on what basis should affirmative action be rejected?
Understanding this issue requires looking beyond legal arguments to the concept of hegemony, defined as an active process by which the dominant group maintains legitimacy through consent and coercion. In this case, the dominant group is the Supreme Court, and its majority opinion frames colorblindness as common sense. By presenting this interpretation as self-evident, the Court shapes public understanding of fairness while overlooking historical context.
This hegemonic framework treats all uses of race as equal, regardless of whether they perpetuate inequality or attempt to address it. It ignores the reality that race has historically been used to deny opportunity and that ignoring race will not equalize a society that is already unequal.
Colorblindness is a problem. W.E.B Du Bois, one of the great sociologists of our time, wrote, “It is fashionable and popular to… deceive ourselves into thinking that race prejudice in the United States across the Color Line is gradually softening,” and we as a society are working toward an era where separated schools are outdated. Du Bois pushes back on this notion, asserting, “as long as it is impracticable to welcome [Black] students to Harvard, Yale and Princeton; just as long as colleges like Williams, Amherst and Wellesley tend to become the property of certain wealthy families…We shall lack in America…the intelligent basis of a real democracy.” America cannot be fooled into believing that there is no systemic racism in higher education; it is deeply rooted, and affirmative action was a mechanism that helped remedy it. This is exactly where colorblindness becomes a problem: it allows for America to ignore its inequalities while claiming progress has already been made.
The debate over affirmative action is ultimately a battle over what we call fairness. Does democracy mean choice, or does it mean equal access? When colorblindness is treated as self-evident, hegemony is at play. The Court’s decision does not simply redefine admissions policy; it reshapes how equality itself is understood.