Public, education officials condemn affirmative action rulingDate: 7/11/2023 The chorus of local public officials and institutions of higher learning decrying the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling on race-based admissions practices in higher education was nearly deafening in the days following the court’s decision.
On June 29, the Supreme Court decided to effectively strike down affirmative action, determining it to be unlawful to utilize race as a factor in college admissions decision processes. The decision was split, 6-3, with the conservative majority ruling in favor of the decision, with its three liberal judges dissenting.
The Healey-Driscoll administration immediately issued a joint statement signed by Gov. Maura Healey, Lt. Gov. Kim Driscoll, state legislators and education officials condemning the decision and reaffirming their position on diversity and inclusion in education.
“Massachusetts will always be welcoming and inclusive of students of color and students historically underrepresented in higher education. Today’s Supreme Court decision overturns decades of settled law. In the commonwealth, our values and our commitment to progress and continued representation in education remain unshakable,” the statement read.
“We will continue to break down barriers to higher education so that all students see themselves represented in both our public and private campus communities. Massachusetts, the home of the first public school and first university, will lead the way in championing access, equity, and inclusion in education.
“We want to make sure that students of color, LGBTQ+ students, first generation students, and all students historically underrepresented in higher education feel welcomed and valued at our colleges and universities. Today’s decision, while disappointing, will not change our commitment to these students. We have an imperative to make sure our schools reflect our communities. Our academic competitiveness, the future of our workforce, and our commitment to equity demand we take action.”
Among the local public officials signing off on the statement were state Rep. and Massachusetts Black and Latino Legislative Caucus Chair Bud Williams (D-Springfield), and state Sen. and Joint Committee on Higher Education Chair Jo Comerford (D-Northampton). On social media, Comerford said she was “proud” to have been asked to co-sign the statement, calling the court’s decision a “misguided” one that “threatens to turn back the clock on decades of progress.”
She added, “Thankfully, Massachusetts will not yield.”
Presidents of colleges and universities throughout the region also co-signed the message, including Marty Meehan of the University of Massachusetts, Amherst College’s Michael Elliot, American International College’s Hubert Benitez, Bay Path University’s Sandra Doran, Elms College’s Harry Dumay, Hampshire College’s Edward Wingenbach, Mount Holyoke College’s Beverly Daniel Tatum, Smith College’s Kathleen McCartney, Springfield College’s Mary-Beth Cooper, Western New England University’s Robert E. Johnson, Holyoke Community College’s Christina Royal, Springfield Technical Community College’s John Cook and Westfield State University’s Linda Thompson.
Yvette Frisby, interim president and CEO of the Urban League of Springfield, and Joseph Bonilla, a student representative from Westfield State were also among the local supporters of the statement.
In advance of the Supreme Court’s decision, the Healey-Driscoll administration announced the formation of the Advisory Council for the Advancement of Representation in Education, with a goal of ensuring “Massachusetts will always be open, welcoming and inclusive of students of color and other students typically underrepresented in higher education.”
Some local colleges and universities made their own public comments in addition to supporting the commonwealth’s stance, suggesting the decision would have limited effects on their missions or philosophies.
“I have always believed that diversity and inclusion are fundamental to higher education. Despite this ruling, I remain optimistic that institutions will uphold these principles. The Supreme Court’s decision will have minimal impact on AIC, as the college has always operated based on core values that prioritize access, opportunity, and diversity. Given our student demographic, diversity naturally thrives at AIC, and we must continue to serve this diverse population,” said Benitez. “Our mission is to educate the region’s next generation of a diverse workforce. It is essential for institutions of higher education to work collectively to foster a sense of community and belonging while addressing the needs of the communities we serve. Particularly in these times, I am grateful for the existence of institutions like AIC in Western Massachusetts.”
Dumay called the Supreme Court’s decision “deeply disappointing” and affirmative action a “valuable way for institutions of higher education to increase diversity and equity over the past several decades.” With that said, the college would “within the law, continue to be an inclusive institution,” and the ruling would be reviewed carefully by the school.
Cooper said, “In the wake of today’s Supreme Court announcement, which overturned years of race-conscious admissions practices across the United States, we at Springfield College stand with Harvard, the University of North Carolina, and several national educational organizations such as the National Association of Diversity Officers in Higher Education, the American Association of Colleges & Universities, the National Association of Student Personnel Administration, and many others in expressing our concern related to the long term implications of its decision. As we look at our policies, procedures, and practices, Springfield College remains committed to creating and sustaining a diverse, inclusive, and welcoming educational environment and will remain vigilant in our efforts to provide educational access and equality for all.”
Further, the state’s Department of Higher Education released its own statement, saying that it “remains firmly committed to continuing to advance equitable educational opportunities for all learners, particularly for those who have been historically marginalized — to attend and succeed in college.” The department said it would review the decision to identify policies that comply with the law in order to “advance our commitment to diversity, equity and inclusion.”
The statement concluded, “We believe that safeguarding and continuing to advance these central tenets is important for student success and is foundational for a strong workforce, economy, and representative democracy in our commonwealth.”
State Rep. Carlos Gonzalez, a Democrat whose district includes Springfield’s South End, Metro Center and Brightwood and Memorial Square neighborhoods in the city’s North End, said in a statement that the ruling has the potential to adversely affect low-income students and those of color.
“By eliminating this policy, we risk further marginalizing underrepresented groups and hindering their access to higher education opportunities. It is crucial to recognize the importance of affirmative action in creating a more equitable society and providing a level playing field for all students, regardless of their socioeconomic status or race,” he said. “Marginalized students will become unable to find earnest employment where their future will be judged on their work and aptitude and be allowed greater economic success and opportunity. We set back our nation when we deny equal opportunity for all. It is essential that our most elite higher education institutions reflect the diverse makeup of our society. As a Massachusetts legislator, I will work to assure equity in education for all and that access to opportunity is not just limited to some.”
State Sen. Jake Oliveira (D-Ludlow) also spoke strongly against the decision made by what he called “our rogue Supreme Court” that would “intentionally disregard the decades worth of progress toward equity.” He went on to say that with the decision, “the Supreme Court has made it clear that equity, inclusion, and diversity do not matter to them. It has made it clear that underserved and underrepresented communities and minorities don’t matter to them. It has made it clear that their priority is maintaining the status quo.”
While the message from public and education officials was clear, recent data suggests it is not the universal stance, and in fact, conservative justices “were in lockstep with the plurality of the public” according to Tatishe Nteta, provost professor of political science at UMass Amherst.
Nteta was the director of a national poll conducted by the university earlier in June that revealed that 42% of respondents supported the discontinuation of affirmative action policies and believed that race and ethnicity should no longer factor into college admissions decisions, while 33% support the continued use of these criteria.
“In fact, the only groups that express majoritarian support for affirmative action in higher education are progressives (51%), the highly educated (51%) and African Americans (52%). Given this relatively paltry level of support, it is no surprise that the use of race in college admissions has been ruled unconstitutional,” Nteta said.
While the results were favorable for the Supreme Court in this particular case, the polling also indicated a relative distaste for the court’s recent performance and a desire for change. Just 41% of the 1,133 respondents approved of the current justices’ work. UMass Amherst political science professor and poll co-director Jesse Rhodes called the court “the victim of its own aggressiveness” with its “profoundly conservative stamp on federal policy” for a nation that overall does not support or adopt strongly conservative views.
Rhodes also opined that Chief Justice John Roberts’ expressed concerns about the court’s perceived legitimacy in the public is warranted. “With revelations of conflicts of interest among justices, as well as extreme rulings that depart from the preferences of the public, the court is putting itself in a dangerous position,” he said.
To this point, while the same poll showed even lower approval ratings for members of Congress (28%), Nteta said it appeared public opinion would be on lawmakers’ side if they were to press the Supreme Court to adopt a code of conduct like the one to which other federal judges must adhere.
UMass political science professor Raymond La Raja, who also co-directed the poll, noted 65% of respondents supported term limits for Supreme Court justices. “Given the current makeup of the court, however, it is not surprising to see partisan differences in opinion: 82% of Democrats want this new rule, but just 49% of Republicans support the idea,” he added.
|
