Magazine, The Immigrant Experience
A recent roundtable brought together leaders from higher education, corporate, and legal sectors to assess the progress of diversity efforts following the 2023 Supreme Court decision that overturned affirmative action in college admissions. The event featured prominent voices, including Fran Fajana (Director of Racial Justice Strategy, LatinoJustice), Liz King (Senior Director of Education Equity, The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights), Sarah Zhang (a University of North Carolina senior and diversity activist), Niyati Shah (Litigation Director, Asian Americans Advancing Justice – AAJC), and Amalea Smirniotopoulos (Senior Policy Counsel, Legal Defense Fund).
The discussion focused on the aftermath of the Students for Fair Admissions (SSFA) case, which eliminated race as a factor in higher education admissions. Panelists highlighted the pervasive impact of this decision across various sectors and questioned whether society is advancing or regressing in its commitment to diversity and equity.
Diversity at a Crossroads: The Asian American Perspective
Niyati Shah provided an overview of diversity issues from an Asian American perspective. She traced the roots of the affirmative action debate, discussing the role of Ed Blum, who spearheaded the SSFA cases by leveraging the model minority myth to challenge Harvard’s admissions policies. Shah emphasized how this ruling reinforced a “zero-sum” mindset, suggesting that opportunities granted to some groups necessarily come at the expense of others—a flawed concept that disproportionately affects Asian Americans and other minorities.
Shah also discussed the ripple effects of the decision, particularly in the K-12 education system, using the example of Thomas Jefferson High School for Science and Technology. The school’s race-neutral admissions policies faced challenges, with some Asian parents arguing that eliminating certain competitive advantages, such as costly test prep, constituted discrimination. The courts ultimately rejected this argument, underscoring the need to combat zero-sum thinking with a more nuanced understanding of diversity and opportunity.
The Need for Data and Accountability
One recurring theme across the panel was the critical importance of data collection in measuring the impact of diversity policies. Shah pointed out that without comprehensive data, institutions cannot assess whether their admissions processes are equitable. As the class of 2028 emerges, early data shows wide fluctuations in enrollment trends, making it difficult to draw definitive conclusions about the effect of the affirmative action ban. However, Shah emphasized that data-driven strategies are essential for understanding both successes and challenges in the evolving landscape of diversity.
Racial Justice in the Latino Community
Fran Fajana spoke on how the overturning of affirmative action has affected communities of color, particularly the Latino population. He stressed the significance of maintaining diversity in education as a tool for social mobility and racial justice. Fajana argued that dismantling policies like affirmative action threatens to widen the racial and socio-economic disparities that affirmative action once sought to bridge.
Looking Ahead: Diversity in the Wake of Legal Challenges
The discussion underscored a broader concern: while the affirmative action ruling has shifted the legal landscape, it also represents a cultural and societal crossroads. Amalea Smirniotopoulos highlighted the role of legal challenges in shaping the future of diversity efforts, suggesting that while the fight is far from over, organizations must continue to innovate and advocate for policies that promote inclusion.
In her remarks, Francisco Fajana from Latino Justice elaborated on the increasing legal challenges community-based organizations and higher education programs face in the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision. She pointed out that over 50 cases had already been filed since the ruling, illustrating the extent of the backlash. According to Fajana, this legal landscape is creating palpable anxiety within communities that rely on programs designed to support racial diversity and equity. She asserted that these developments are clear evidence of societal regression rather than progress.
Fajana highlighted two key examples to underscore her concerns. She first referenced the lawsuit filed against the Smithsonian Latino Museum’s college internship program, which had been initiated to encourage Latino students to pursue museum careers. Fajana explained that the lawsuit, led by Ed Blum, accused the program of discriminating against non-Latino applicants due to the high percentage of Latino participants. Despite the program being only two years old, Blum and his associates claimed it exhibited bias, citing a specific individual, identified as both Black and White, who they argued would have been denied the opportunity to participate.
Fajana revealed that Latino Justice, in partnership with other civil rights organizations, had filed an amicus brief to contest these claims. Their argument clarified that the SFFA decision had been misapplied and that the Latino identity, which encompasses Afro-Latinos, is an ethnic group rather than a race. She reported that the case had been settled in March of the same year, allowing the program to continue, albeit with an updated policy explicitly stating that it was open to all students, something that had always been the case but now required clearer language.
Fajana’s second example illustrated the impact the SFFA decision was having on community-based organizations, noting how Latino Justice had been working closely with these groups to help them understand the implications of the ruling. She remarked that many organizations were now questioning whether they could legally collect racial or ethnic data, offer scholarships targeted at Latino students, or even use “Latino” in their organization’s name without risking accusations of discrimination. This, she stressed, highlighted the chilling effect the ruling was having on efforts to foster racial equity in education and beyond.
In response, Liz King from the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights added to the discussion by addressing how the Supreme Court’s decision was affecting underserved students and the overall goal of racial equity in higher education. King shared that her organization had been working closely with civil rights groups to counteract the harmful effects of the ruling, emphasizing that racial diversity in higher education remains critical to the future of the nation.
Liz King from the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights emphasized the value of holistic college admissions and the importance of allowing applicants to express all aspects of their identities. King pointed out that even the Supreme Court acknowledged that colleges should continue to consider how race and racism have shaped the experiences of students. She argued that knowing if an applicant, regardless of race, was motivated by issues of racial justice during their educational journey could be crucial in understanding their perspective and reasons for applying to a particular university.
King stressed that holistic admissions processes were necessary for a fair evaluation of students’ potential. She explained that colleges have long relied on more than just test scores because these so-called objective measures often fail to reflect the full range of a student’s experiences and challenges. King provided examples to illustrate this point, explaining that a student who achieved good grades while supporting their family or managing caregiving responsibilities should be seen differently from one who did not face such obstacles. She argued that test scores are often heavily influenced by factors like access to expensive test preparation, which is tied to family income, highlighting the inequities in the current system.
King criticized policies that favor privilege, such as giving preference to students who can afford to take campus tours or meet early admissions deadlines, which disproportionately affect lower-income students, particularly students of color. She argued that these policies have nothing to do with a student’s actual talent or potential but are instead the result of systemic inequities in access to opportunities.
Referring to a recent report from the Common Application, King noted that despite the Supreme Court’s decision, students of color continue to assert their value in college admissions. She expressed encouragement at the resilience of these students, who remain determined to contribute their unique experiences and talents to their campuses, even in the face of new barriers.
King concluded by reinforcing the idea that the true intent of the legal challenges to affirmative action, particularly the SFFA case, was to maintain white supremacy in college admissions. She expressed hope, however, in the persistence of students of color who continue to demand access to higher education and who are determined to challenge the structures that seek to exclude them.
The roundtable concluded with a clear consensus: while the legal frameworks surrounding diversity in higher education have shifted, the commitment to inclusion must remain unwavering. The participants emphasized that despite the setbacks posed by recent court rulings and policy changes, there is an urgent need for continued vigilance, policy innovation, and robust data collection to prevent diversity efforts from stalling or regressing. They highlighted the importance of holistic admissions that consider the broader life experiences of applicants, beyond test scores and metrics that often perpetuate privilege.
As society grapples with the implications of the affirmative action ruling, it is evident that the conversation on diversity is far from over. The roundtable served as a critical reflection point, assessing where we stand in this ongoing struggle and how to move forward with purpose. The resilience of students of color, the power of collective action, and the need for inclusive policies were all central themes, underscoring that the path toward a more equitable and inclusive future requires sustained commitment and innovation.
#DiversityInEducation #InclusionMatters #AffirmativeAction #EqualOpportunity #EducationalEquity #SocialJustice #DiversityAndInclusion #EducationReform #RacialJustice #FutureOfEducation