The U.S. Supreme Court will be hearing arguments in two affirmative action cases at the end of October to decide whether or not race should play a role in college admissions at Harvard University and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. These cases could go against past rulings that allows colleges to consider a student’s race when deciding which students should be admitted. The lawsuits were brought by the anti-affirmative action organization Students for Fair Admissions, which is hoping to reverse policies determined by another Supreme Court ruling in 2016 involving the University of Texas. In that case, the court upheld race-conscious admissions policies by a narrow 4-3 margin, but the three dissenters are now joined by Justices Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett, all Trump appointees.
Commentary
-
Our commentary partners will help you reach your own conclusions on complex topics.
Universities across the nation will be on watch as this debate rages at the highest court on the highest level on an admissions policy that’s been in effect for most of our universities for more than 60 years.
As noted in the Washington Post, I don’t often quote the Washington Post, but they said that this case is making what could be the last stand for affirmative action in public university admissions.”
The reason they said that is remember last time we had this go-around at the court one of the Supreme Court justices said, “We’ve gotta do this race-baiting stuff for another 25 years.” But you know what? This “last stand” could be a better opportunity for us to evaluate where we are today in terms of race, where we are today in terms of education, where we are today in terms of higher learning.
An opportunity to chart a new path perhaps, to go forward, instead of continuing this ill-informed path of the past that we’ve got to consider race in everything we do because some people just can’t self-govern. They don’t have the capacity to make right choices. They don’t have the capacity to bring themselves up to standards. That’s what the left is really saying when they keep insisting we need affirmative action policy in the country. There are just some people who can’t do it so we got to lower our standards.
To be sure, we must have a discussion on how to open the doors for every American to reach their God-given potential. But undermining equal treatment for all and compromising standards of excellence in the pursuit of knowledge is not one of the ways to build a civil and healthy society.
After the Civil Rights Act was signed into law, as a people, we should have done what Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. himself said. He said in his “I Have a Dream” speech, go back into the communities and build, because once the Civil Rights Act was signed into law, we as a nation no longer should’ve been looking at race as a special interest. Through all of these race programs, we should not have been thinking about race as a collective.
In fact if you look at that speech of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., it was broken down into three parts. First he did speak to the nation about their blank check, about the race policies in the South.
Then he spoke to the Negro who was [unintell] and then he spoke to the nation’s Christians, people like himself and said, now let’s roll up our sleeves and get the hard part done, which is to make sure we incorporate everyone as Americans into this beautiful melting pot and dream.
Individually, of course, we’re uniquely made. There’s some beauty in all of us, and ethnicity has that attribute itself.
We want to become race blind but we also don’t want to keep focusing. After the death of King, who removed those barriers. His march was about removing those barriers. Progressives took us down a whole different path. The perception of racism became a business, because we started down this path of putting an emphasis on race.
Next thing you know, we had affirmative action programs, racial preference programs.
And now you fast-forward that to today. There are very few discussions that can take place without emphasizing race. It has hurt us as a nation.
It has kept this heavy emphasis on special interests, on ethnicity that the Dr. King movement was to remove those barriers. Instead of focusing on the color of our skin, let’s perhaps move forward in our thinking. Let’s rethink how we evaluate our students for college admissions.
I’m hoping that the Supreme Court takes the opportunity to dig deeper than they did last time to say do we really need 25 years to figure out that people of all ethnicities can pursue their dream, that they can find themselves, that they have the capacity to self-govern?
We need to move to one that aids our country’s noble pursuit of truth. We need a system to build a more perfect union when it comes to what we’re learning in our colleges but also how our students are getting to college.
We need a union that uplifts every American, not based on the color of their skin, you’ve heard it before again and again, but on the content of their character.
-
Congress must pass SAVE Act without delay
House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., is currently pushing for the passage of the controversial SAVE Act, a bill that would require voters to show proof of citizenship at the polls. Democrats have pledged to oppose it. Former President Donald Trump has urged congressional Republicans to pursue a government shutdown if they can’t secure passage of… -
Don’t blame Israel, and keep the pressure on Hamas
Negotiators working to achieve a permanent cease-fire in the Israel-Hamas war have experienced a roller coaster of highs and lows since the Oct. 7 attack, at times coming close to a workable deal. Complicating their work is the difficulty of establishing any long-term political and security framework that meets the needs of both the Israeli… -
Harris-Walz extreme abortion views out of step with Americans
Abortion is poised to be a central issue in the 2024 presidential election. As a senator, presidential nominee Kamala Harris was a strong advocate for abortion rights, including cosponsoring legislation that would have banned state-level restrictions like mandatory medical tests. Harris’s vice-presidential pick, Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, signed a law in early 2023 safeguarding abortion… -
Democrats’ double standard when selectively building security walls
During Donald Trump’s presidency, many progressives opposed building a wall along the southern border, which was intended to prevent illegal crossings from Mexico into the United States. Recently, another “wall” was constructed around the National Democratic Convention in Chicago to manage potential pro-Palestinian protests. In the video above, Straight Arrow News contributor Star Parker argues… -
Pro-life conservatives must reject Tim Walz
Gov. Tim Walz of Minnesota has a celebrated record among his constituents, and has wide-ranging support from progressives, moderates and conservatives. On the Right, however, some Republicans have argued that Walz’s positions on abortion access and transgender rights are too far Left. Watch the above video as Straight Arrow News contributor Star Parker criticizes Walz…
Popular Opinions
-
In addition to the facts, we believe it’s vital to hear perspectives from all sides of the political spectrum.