For Whites Only: Affirmative Action

The Supreme Court continues to be a tool for white supremacy.

Photo of the Supreme Court by Ian Hutchinson.

Adding to the long, shadowed history of this nation, today’s decision by the Supreme Court to effectively stop colleges and universities from being able to consider race in the applications of its prospective students, has birthed yet another terror in our collective nightmare. A gory sketch where Black bodies and brown dreams, once again, have been delivered a crushing blow. Likely meant to leave us metaphorically (or literally) bloodied and on the ropes.

In days to come, the narrative will be that a 6 to 3 vote tore down the walls of affirmative action for everyone. But it is vital for us to interrogate that narrative, to go beyond the surface and delve into the nooks and crannies that hide the bitter truth. The stark reality is that affirmative action is not dead, it thrives and blooms in lily white gardens, sanctuaries for those whose skin matches the historic hue of power and privilege.

The court did not strike down all the ways in which identity and proximity benefit would-be students. The rules remain intact for those who benefit from having family members who are school legacies, employees, or donors. Those who have long feasted on the spoils of wealth, influence and generational advantage.

But the rot of this decision does not end there. The court, in its ruling, also sidesteps the impact of a decision on gender. Likely in part, because statistically, White women have been the most significant beneficiaries of affirmative action programs and policies. Though, white women have also historically acted as one of affirmative action’s staunchest opponents.

Over the years, a disappointing trend has grown - white women have increasingly become vocal critics of affirmative action. According to a 2014 study, about 70 percent of the 20,694 self-identified non-Hispanic white women surveyed opposed affirmative action.

Through the lens of history, it is clear that affirmative action has significantly aided white women. Their representation in the workforce and educational institutions has notably increased since the implementation of these policies. Yet, despite the visible benefits, there exists a powerful thread of resistance, largely due to race.

It isn’t a coincidence that much of the dialogue on affirmative action tends to veer towards Black and brown people, eclipsing the integral role of gender. This is a calculated consequence of dedicated campaigning by generations in opposition to race-based civil rights initiatives—a reaction sparked by the legal transformations birthed from the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s. Which conceived affirmative action as a means to rectify the longstanding systemic bias and discrimination faced by historically marginalized groups.

As changes in our nation began to take shape, and affirmative action policies became more inclusive of gender, disability, veterans, and others — white conservatives amassed their resources to mount a crusade against the hard-earned victories of civil rights initiatives. Affirmative action has been squarely in their crosshairs for over 50 years.

Their arsenal has included national media campaigns painting affirmative action as a system favoring people of color at the expense of white individuals. Deliberately sidelining the aspects that benefit fellow white Americans. Which is why it isn’t surprising when white people don’t understand how much they have gained from affirmative action.

Another issue is that within conservative narratives, white women, white disabled people, and white members of the LGBTQ+ community, are placed in a position of navigating dual identities: they are beneficiaries of affirmative action in their marginalization, yet simultaneously perceived as potential losers in the racial aspect of the policy. The opposition of white people to affirmative action underscores a broader issue—the disconnect between individual experiences and systemic realities.

Furthermore, the deeply entrenched lie of American meritocracy plays a significant role. Many white people may feel that their achievements are undermined by the notion that they needed affirmative action to succeed. Gaslighted by the discomfort of potentially being perceived as recipients of "special treatment.” An interesting hill to die on, requiring one to completely ignore that the only reason most of them have their privileges was their ancestor’s willingness to leverage nooses and guns.

Most white American meritocracy, like its exceptionalism, is bathed in blood.

Which has led us to this moment. A nation caught in a tunnel-visioned perspective on affirmative action. Which the right-wing has taken full advantage of, and has ultimately given the Supreme Court the opportunity to make a decision that rejects the very idea of diversity and equity in education. It also sends a chilling message to future generations -- our institutions of learning and achieving are to be monochrome landscapes, dominated by the color and culture of whiteness.

Though, the court on surface argued the opposite, weaponizing the concept of “colorblindness” as the faux promise of a fair and impartial education system and country, claiming to be a shield, protecting us all. When in fact, the court has once again acted as a sword, that on this day, ruthlessly cut down long-fought gains in racial progress. In the name of white supremacy.

Justice Clarence Thomas, an active weapon against Black futures, and the second Black judge to sit on the Supreme Court bench, offered a personal critique of affirmative action, leaning further into the lie of colorblindness. He characterized policies such as affirmative action as "rudderless, race-based preferences designed to ensure a particular racial mix in their entering classes… While I am painfully aware of the social and economic ravages which have befallen my race and all who suffer discrimination, I hold out enduring hope that this country will live up to its principles so clearly enunciated in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution…”

This begs the question: When has the United States ever lived up to any principle, other than those set forth to destroy anyone who isn’t White, heterosexual, and Christian?

The notion of "colorblindness," this supposedly well-intentioned approach to racial equality, paradoxically perpetuates the very inequity it purports to erase. Instead of dismantling racial hierarchies, it reinforces them, primarily serving the interests of white people, thereby enabling the status quo.

To claim colorblindness is to wilfully ignore my Blackness. It is to feign ignorance of the centuries-long legacy of racialized oppression, to disregard the formidable hurdles and historical lashes this nation has placed in my path for 400 years. To not see me in my entirety, in my full racial and cultural identity, is to deny my lived experience, to reject the realities of systemic educational, wealth, and housing disparities that continue to disproportionately affect Black people. Neglecting to acknowledge this reality does not serve me; it diminishes me.

My Blackness is not a blemish to be ignored or erased; it is an integral part of who I am. I want you to see that I am Black, and in recognizing this fundamental aspect of my identity, I want you to acknowledge the implicit and explicit biases that Black people face every day. Recognizing my Blackness should not be an act of erasure but a call to confront the systemic racism that persistently undermines the supposed promise of this nation.

Advocating for colorblindness implies an acceptance of the world as it is, rather than what it can be.

Instead of aspiring to colorblindness, we should strive for racial-consciousness— which is largely what affirmative action was attempting to do. Born of a desire to balance the scales, to infuse the process of higher education with a conscious and deliberate effort to combat the repercussions of a historical imbalance. But the decision of the court guts that truth, refusing to acknowledge that this imbalance still exists, that the shadows of our racial history are still cast over the educational landscape and every aspect of our daily lives.

Chief Justice John Roberts, the pen behind this decision, argued that the admissions programs of Harvard and University of North Carolina violated the Equal Protection Clause. He suggested that these programs perpetuated racial stereotyping and lacked a specific end point.

But Roberts, along with the white supremacist majority, purposely ignored the essence of these programs. Their purpose was not to divide, but to understand, to consider the lived experiences of non-white students. They were not designed to have a neat, crisp end point but to be a constant striving towards a better, more equitable tomorrow. Which is something this Supreme Court has no interest in.

More than a legal decision, this is a reflection of a deeper, structural bias that continues to plague our society. It speaks volumes about the values that we, as a nation, claim to hold dear. We have been offered a bitter pill and the choice now lies with us. Will we swallow it in silence, or will we raise our voices against those who threaten to engulf us?

This is not just about affirmative action, it is about our collective struggle for equality, justice, and the promise of a better tomorrow.