Since a White policeman killed Black George Floyd, in Minneapolis, Minnesota, two years ago, the relations between Whites and Blacks in the US have heated-up, mostly because of the oversized influence of extremists on both sides.
On one side, the Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement, after succeeding in its awareness campaign about police mistreatment of Blacks, moved to the left, and, using slogans like “Reckoning,” called for reminding the Whites about past slavery and discrimination – to make Whites feel guilty and to gain political points.
On the other side, Whites are divided between liberals and progressives who are calling for “compassion” towards Blacks, because of past slavery and discrimination. On yet another side, conservatives and moderates are calling for opening a new page, instead of dwelling in the ugly past.
The Supreme Court recently declared that it will rule on the constitutionality of Affirmative Action, a government program that started during the 1960’s, and has been mainly about allowing more Black students to enter universities, even if they are not academically qualified, but for the sake of “Diversity.”
The Supreme Court will look into a case between Harvard University and Students for Fair Admission (SFA), a group that spearheaded the Affirmative Action challenges.
In 2002, the Supreme Court relaxed its former support of Affirmative Action, and ruled that race should not be the only factor in accepting Black students’ university applications, but “one of many factors.” But, while the court at that time had a slight liberal majority, now it has a strong conservative majority.
Here are excerpts of the opposing opinions of two men, based upon their tweets, websites and statements to the media:
On one side is Edward Blum, President of SFA, and a fellow at the Washington-based conservative American Enterprise Institute (AEI). Since the 1990s, he has been heavily involved in bringing cases to court about Affirmative Action and related issues.
On the other side is Lawrence Bacow, President of Harvard University since 2018, and a strong supporter of Affirmative Action. Before that, he was the president of Tufts University in Massachusetts, where he also supported the issue.
EDWARD BLUM: UNCONSTITUTIONAL
“Year after year, polls have shown that Americans strongly disapprove race-conscious admissions in universities ...
In a multi-racial, multi-ethnic nation like ours, the university’s admissions bar cannot be raised for some races and ethnic groups, but lowered for others. Our nation cannot remedy past discrimination and racial preferences with new discrimination and different racial preferences...
It would be fitting for the Supreme Court to judge Harvard University on this issue because of the need to have Harvard held up to a national standard …
The Trump administration had supported our challengers in lower courts, but the Biden administration switched that position and told the court it should not accept our challenge …
True, in 2016, the Supreme Court allowed – but with a narrow majority – the University of Texas to use race “as one of other factors.” Fortunately, the dissenters in that case — Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito, Jr. — remain on the Court, and are now joined by the Trump nominees, Neil M. Gorsuch, Brett M. Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett …
In 2006, Chief Justice Roberts declared, in a similar case, that ‘It is a sordid business, this dividing us up by race’…
That year, and during the following years, the Court, clearly and repeatedly, said that universities ‘must consider whether race-neutral admission practices can achieve their diversity goals.’ In other words, cancelling the race factor might not be a discriminatory action …
Some states, including California, Michigan and Florida, have banned the consideration of race in admissions to public universities. Such measures enjoy substantial political support. In 2020, California voters decisively rejected a proposal to repeal the ban …
Harvard has also allowed racism against Asian-Americans to skew its review of their applications. We have collected plenty of data that showed a contradiction in Harvard's policy towards Asian students:
On one side, it gives strong ratings to Asian American applicants for academic performance.
On the other side, it penalizes them in ratings of personal qualities such as leadership and compassion ...
Actually, we have results of an internal Harvard’s investigation that suggested Asian Americans would be admitted in greater numbers if academic performance were the only criterion for admission — but Harvard kept the results secret …”
LAWRENCE BACOW: FOR THE SAKE OF DIVERSITY
“Harvard does not discriminate …
That the Supreme Court accepted to look into this case puts at risk 40 years of legal precedent granting colleges and universities the freedom and flexibility to create diverse campus communities. Considering race as one factor among many in admissions decisions produces a more diverse student body which strengthens the learning environment for all …
To assemble the strongest first-year class, Harvard looks for students who excel beyond academics and who will bring distinctive experiences, perspectives, talents, and interests to the campus …
To find the strongest applicants, 40 admissions officers conduct a time-consuming, whole-person review process in which each applicant is evaluated as a unique individual…
Harvard University has embraced diversity, in all its forms, as a core feature of its educational mission. It considers race flexibly as merely one factor among numerous factors in its holistic admissions process. And it has scrupulously studied and adopted workable race-neutral alternatives...
In 2016, the Supreme Court upheld the limited use of race in student admissions by the University of Texas. The majority opinion written by Justice Anthony M. Kennedy reiterated high-court rulings that diversity justifies some intrusion on the Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection, which generally forbids the government to make decisions based on race…
For decades, colleges and universities have relied on guidance from the Supreme Court that it is acceptable to take race into account as one factor among many in a holistic review of an application…
Their rationale is that racial diversity on campus serves a compelling educational interest. In other words, students learn through encounters with peers who may look different from them …
About the issue of Asian students, true, Harvard University asked a committee to review the situation, and the final results were not published because the review was incomplete and preliminary…
We don’t discriminate against Asian American students. And we don’t penalize them …
In 2018, a U.S. District judge rejected those claims in a ruling for the benefit of Harvard. The judge called the Harvard process 'imperfect' but also 'a very fine admissions program that passes constitutional muster.' The judge found no persuasive evidence of ‘racial animus or conscious prejudice’ against Asian Americans.
In 2020, a U.S. Court of Appeals upheld the ruling …”
