Skip to main content

The Ripple Effects of Overturning Affirmative Action: An Unsettling Blow to Democracy

How can we truly claim to have a democracy for all when we recklessly discard one of the few mechanisms in place to safeguard the representation that our democracy desperately needs?

On June 29th, 2023, in the case of Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College, the Supreme Court overturned a long-standing pillar of progress: affirmative action. Affirmative action, a policy designed to address historical imbalances and promote diversity, has been a vital tool in leveling the playing field for marginalized communities. It has sought to dismantle systemic barriers that have hindered opportunities for individuals based on race, ethnicity, and other protected characteristics. For decades, it has been a beacon of hope for those striving for equal access to education and employment, aiming to create a more just and inclusive society. Affirmative action is a central mechanism to our collective progress as a democracy. This landmark decision by the Supreme Court threatens to erode the foundation of progress that has been painstakingly built over the years.


By dismantling affirmative action, the Supreme Court has set in motion a disastrous ripple effect which will have far-reaching implications beyond academia. Without these policies in place, the progress made toward leveling the playing field will stagnate, exacerbating existing disparities and hindering the advancement of communities that sit at the margin of our society. 


The majority opinion sought to show colleges in the US that being colorblind is a fast-track solution to solving racism. While some commend this decision, the pressure that this mounts on Non-Asian minorities, around the country and around the world, have effects that the court did not account for. Instead of Affirmative Action based on background or socio-economic properties, they chose to gut a vital process of its ability to enshrine diversity within higher-education institutions in the US. 


Many believe that Asian-Americans will benefit from the retraction of Affirmative Action. The original decision to not include Asian-Americans while considering minorities for Affirmative Action was based on the model minority stereotype; however, what the June 29th decision staunchly bolsters is that same idea. Asian-Americans are perceived as the model minority in the US, based on socio-economic factors, education level, and more. With the removal of Affirmative Action, there will be swaths of Asian-Americans applying to colleges with the same qualifications, having an inversely proportionate effect on how many are actually enrolled. 


In overturning affirmative action, the Supreme Court begs to erode the foundational principles of democracy, which,at its core, thrives on the idea of equal representation and fair treatment for all citizens. By removing affirmative action, a pillar of equality, we have set into motion the perpetuation of the unequal distribution of resources, opportunities, and power, undermining the democratic ideals that our societies once held dear. Without these policies in place, the progress made toward leveling the playing field will stagnate, exacerbating existing disparities and hindering the advancement of communities that sit at the margin of our society.


The Supreme Court has set in motion a disastrous ripple effect which will have far-reaching implications beyond immediate outcomes. The dismantling of affirmative action will perpetuate cycles of exclusion and inequalities within our society. This ruling begs the question, how can individuals who have been directly impacted by this abusive judicial power be asked to believe in the democratic process itself as it exists in this country?


The essence of democracy lies in embracing diverse perspectives and providing a platform for voices from all walks of life. Affirmative action has been a critical step toward ensuring this inclusivity, enabling individuals from underrepresented backgrounds to contribute to the collective discourse. Overturning it risks silencing these voices and creating an environment where power is concentrated in the hands of the privileged few.


In our history, there are moments that resonate with infamy, forever etching their names into the collective memory of a nation. Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College, will undoubtedly be enshrined alongside Plessy v. Ferguson and Roe v. Wade. This case serves as a stark reminder of the racist and patriarchal forces that have plagued our nation for nearly 247 years, but it also highlights the dangerous implications of an excessively powerful judiciary on our democratic system. When courts wield unchecked authority, they pose a grave threat to the principles of self-governance and collective representation that our democracy strives to uphold.


Higher education has been endemically segregated so race always has and will continue to play a large factor. California voters voted against affirmative action in 1966, making all of the University of California (UC) schools unable to use race as a factor in the admissions process. Since 1966, Black, Latino, and Native American enrollment has dropped significantly at the UC’s, proving that the removal of affirmative action did not indeed help the racial diversity of the school. 


The ripple effect will only continue out of higher education. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects employment discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, and national origin. Overturning affirmative action will only cause the failure of diversity to perpetuate into our workforce. This decision has a high probability of leading to future problems, as employers will begin to use the precedent set by this case to alter and disband racial programs implemented to educate and diversify their workplace. 


Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College and Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Organization severely weakened the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection clause, to an extent where decisions based on that clause are all at risk. The Equal Protection Clause reads as follows: “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” What this essentially means is that the law must not discriminate against any people. June 29th’s decision severely weakened this to an extent where all minorities are now being adversely affected during their college admission cycle, based upon one factor: their race.


To truly uphold the democratic ideals that are so foundational to our country, we must recognize that affirmative action is not a threat but a necessary mechanism for progress. By affirming equal opportunities for all, we foster a society that embraces diversity, encourages social mobility, and strengthens the very foundations upon which our democracy stands. To deny affirmative action is to deny true democracy. 


This article was a collaborative effort made by Liz Hahn (Education & Advocacy), Ishana Bandyopadhyay (President), Neil Sairam (Finance Director)


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The Good & Bad of Straight Ticket Voting

Voting – especially in our current political climate – can be stressful. Oftentimes, voters can feel overwhelmed standing at the voting booth making a decision candidate by candidate, for many, it is easier to straight party vote. While straight-party voting is only an option in seven states; Alabama, Indiana, Michigan, Kentucky, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and Nevada, it is often seen as the ‘easy way out’. By checking one box, you are able to cast your ballot for every candidate of your chosen political party. This does not typically allow for the consideration of third-party candidates and does not encourage voters to be familiar with or educated on each candidate or state question prior to heading to the polls. During his time as the United States' first President, George Washington was quick to warn citizens against party loyalty, now, nearly 27.2 million registered voters in America have the option to do just that, should they decide to go vote. There are a variety of views re...

Why You Should Care About Moore v. Harper

So you may be wondering, what is Moore v. Harper? This groundbreaking case has been going on for over a year now, and when its final verdict comes out this year, it will have major implications for voting rights for many Americans. In 2021, the Republican-led North Carolina state legislature passed a bill that gerrymanders districts to create a state supermajority for their 14 seats. The map gives the Republicans a 99.9% chance of retaining their majority. The state voters were very unhappy with this and decided to contest this map in state courts, as there was a Supreme Court precedent that stated that federal courts cannot hear partisan gerrymandering cases. They contended that this map violated the North Carolina state constitution’s free election clause. At the time, the North Carolina Supreme Court had a Democrat majority within their elected court. The North Carolina Supreme Court agreed with the voters and struck down the map stating that it was an “egregious and intentional par...

LEGAL DISCLAIMER

The following is a legal disclaimer for the blog published by the George Washington University chapter of Democracy Matters: The views expressed in the posts on this blog are those of the individual authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of Democracy Matters. The authors are solely responsible for the content of their posts, and Democracy Matters does not endorse or assume any responsibility for any opinions, statements, or other content expressed in these posts. The information provided on this blog is intended for educational and informational purposes only. It is not intended to be a substitute for professional advice or guidance. Readers should not act or rely solely on the information provided on this blog without seeking the advice of a professional. Furthermore, Democracy Matters does not guarantee the accuracy or completeness of any information provided on this blog. While we make every effort to ensure that the information on this blog is up-to-date and accurate, we ...