Concerning the recent Supreme Court cases that are reputed to end most race-based affirmative action programs for higher education, I mostly agree with Freddie DeBoer at this link (substack, so probably pay walled). But I have a few other thoughts.
(I should disclose that I have only now started reading the court decision. I may think differently after reading it.)
Thought #1: I'm surprised (though again, I haven't read the decision) that the admissions practices of a private institution like Harvard can be subject to this federal lawsuit. I understand that Harvard, like most so-called "private" universities, are subsidized in many, many ways by state and federal governments. But I'm still a bit surprised they don't (apparently) have more leeway to make race-based decisions.
Thought #2: This decision seems to address only admissions and not financial aid. I don't know how it will affect any race-based financial supports. If this decision significantly curtails those, too, then, right or wrong, it is very unfortunate.
Thought #3: I understand that the more wealthy top-tier schools make a point to financially support poorer students at close to 100% of costs. I suspect that such financial support is not all it's cracked up to be, but curtailing admissions at those places probably, in its own way, curtails some financial supports a la thought #2 above.
Thought #4: I don't shed a lot of tears for someone who doesn't get into Harvard or Yale and instead has to go to a "lesser" ivy league or go to one of the many other top-tier undergraduate schools.
Thought #5: Notwithstanding thought #4, I'm not convinced we're talking only of top-tier schools. If we're talking about a selective enrollment, local private school that offers robust financial supports and a easy-to-win-admission local public school that offers almost none--in that case, someone not admitted under an affirmative action policy may find they'll end up at an institution where they have to pay much more, maybe prohibitively much more, than they would have at the private one.
Thought #6: The retort that "white males have had affirmative action for 100 years" is glibly dismissive of many well-reasoned, sincere concerns about race-based affirmative action. It's especially unhelpful when offered as the only response to any and all objections: it's a way to shout down someone who disagrees with you.
Thought #7: Notwithstanding thought #6, that retort has more than a kernel of truth. Those, like me, who have benefited from the system need to acknowledge that truth.
Thought #8: In the world as I would like it to be, a college degree would not be nearly as much of a requirement for employment as it seems to be now. But the world isn't as I'd like it to be, so that default requirement suggests, to me, that we need some way to help others meet this requirement.
