Committee of 100, a non-profit organization of prominent Chinese Americans, released a statement June 30 denouncing the SCOTUS ruling. The Committee’s Interim President and Executive Director Cindy Tsai stated:
“Today’s decision strikes down established legal precedent that permitted higher education institutions to consider race as one of many factors in a holistic and individualized admissions process while prohibiting quotas, admissions caps, and minimums. Committee of 100 is disappointed by the Court’s decision to abolish race-conscious admissions policies. For centuries, college admissions policies discriminated against women and minorities. Race-conscious admissions policies started to correct that inequity and gave students of all backgrounds access to higher education.
“We believe an admissions process that considers each student holistically, including life experiences, accomplishments, and racial background, creates the richest educational experience for all and contributes to a stronger and more diverse and inclusive country. Looking forward, we encourage all communities to come together and work towards solutions that ensure the next generation of college students have enriching academic experiences with diverse student bodies.”
Good take. I’ve seen so many liberals express apathy towards this ruling, or say that the SC should bar legacy admissions, or that ending AA is tantamount to ending racism. All of which, to me, miss the point entirely. This case really shows that the US believes education ought to be a walled garden. One where you have to prove your worth to the owning class in order to enter. This ruling closes a very small door on the three foot thick wall surrounding the garden of education. Liberals would like to believe they can make a truly equitable system of admissions that can somehow undo the injustices faced by minorities, but there cannot be a purely meritocratic system of education while there is capital-based access to it, nor should there be. Such a system cannot allow for this access because education is too liberatory.