Some legal observers believe the Supreme Court may overturn affirmative action policies currently in place at America’s universities. The justices are hearing challenges to admissions practices at Harvard and the University of North Carolina. Straight Arrow News contributor Ruben Navarrette has a personal connection to affirmative action and was once supportive of it. He no longer feels that way, and says it’s time to dispel the myth that affirmative action actually helps minorities.
Let’s back up a beat and define affirmative action…then I should describe my personal history with the concept. Affirmative action is more than 60 years old. It was on March 6, 1961, that President John F. Kennedy signed Executive Order 10925. It required that U.S. government contractors take “affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and that employees are treated during employment without regard to their race, creed, color, or national origin.”
Americans have argued about the concept ever since. Three times over the last six decades, the Supreme Court has given colleges and universities permission to take the race ethnicity of applicants into account, as long as it’s just one factor among many in the admissions process. In 1978, in Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, the justices struck down a quota at UC-Davis Medical School, but said race could be considered. In 2003, in Grutter v. Bollinger, the court upheld the admissions policy at the University of Michigan Law School. In 2016 in Fisher v. University of Texas, the justices decided it was okay for UT-Austin to consider race and mission.
My own personal relationship with affirmative action goes back to the fall of 1984, when I was a 17-year-old high school senior. As a Mexican American with perfect grades and advanced placement courses, I was accepted by five elite universities, including Harvard, which I would eventually attend. This inspired white friends whose grades weren’t as good as mine, to tell me that I would not have been admitted had I not been Mexican.
For a long time I stood by affirmative action, maybe out of loyalty, but over the last 20 years, not so much. Gradually, I’ve become convinced that when applied too aggressively, a program that was intended to benefit Latinos and African Americans can actually hurt them. It labels beneficiaries as unqualified, lowers academic standards and masks the failures of the K-12 public schools to properly educate Black and brown students.
Get it straight. Affirmative action is not an attack on whites and Asians. It’s a Band-aid on a bullet wound. It’s time to pull off the bandage and heal the patient, once and for all.
New Rule. White men are not allowed to talk about affirmative action. Not ever, unless they know what the heck they’re talking about. Most don’t. But that doesn’t stop them, of course from spouting off about a topic that they don’t fully understand. In the nearly 40 years that I’ve discussed and written about preferential treatment of college admissions, as opposed to an employment or government contracts, I’ve heard white men spin some fantastical yarns.
Affirmative action is not “reverse discrimination” as they claim. Nor is it part of some massive conspiracy to oppress white men. Affirmative action does not amount to admitting people to college based on race or ethnicity alone. And nor is a kind of cosmic bureaucratic payback for past sins.
Expect to hear more madness in the weeks and months to come. The Supreme Court recently heard arguments in the case, Students for Fair Admissions v. President and Fellows of Harvard College. Plaintiffs accused Harvard of discriminating against Asians. Rubbish. Asians made up 25.9% of the Harvard class admitted in 2021.
White conservatives such as radio host Hugh Hewitt, say Harvard wants to “limit the upward mobility of Asian Americans via the imposition of caps on their admission.” More rubbish. Harvard is a private institution. It’s allowed to make decisions on what it wants its student body to look like. If it decides it doesn’t want a student body that’s 70% Asian, or 70% Latino or 70% Black, for that matter, that’s fair enough. That’s its right.
Two lower federal courts have already ruled in Harvard’s favor, and the amicus briefs submitted on the university’s behalf, included one from the Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund. It rejects the idea that affirmative action hurts Asians and claims that race-neutral admissions “ultimately benefits white applicants.”
Let’s back up a beat and define affirmative action…that I should describe my personal history with the concept. Affirmative action is more than 60 years old. It was on March 6, 1961, that President John F. Kennedy signed Executive Order 10925. It required that U.S. government contractors take “affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and that employees are treated during employment without regard to their race, creed, color, or national origin.”
Americans have argued about the concept ever since. Three times over the last six decades, the Supreme Court has given colleges and universities permission to take the race ethnicity of applicants into account, as long as it’s just one factor among many in the admissions process.
In 1978, in Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, the justices struck down a quota at UC-Davis Medical School, but said race could be considered. In 2003, in Grutter v. Bollinger, the Court upheld the admissions policy at the University of Michigan Law School. In 2016 in Fisher v. University of Texas, the justices decided it was okay for UT-Austin to consider race and mission.
My own personal relationship with affirmative action goes back to the fall of 1984, when I was a 17-year-old high school senior. As a Mexican-American with perfect grades and advanced placement courses, I was accepted by five elite universities, including Harvard, which I would eventually attend. This inspired white friends whose grades weren’t as good as mine, to tell me that I would not have been admitted had I not been Mexican.
For a long time I stood by affirmative action, maybe out of loyalty, but over the last 20 years, not so much. Gradually, I’ve become convinced that when applied to0 aggressively, a program that was intended to benefit Latinos and African-Americans can actually hurt them. It labels beneficiaries as unqualified, lowers academic standards, and masks the failures of the K-12 public schools to properly educate black and brown students.
Get it straight. Affirmative action is not an attack on whites and Asians. It’s a band-aid on a bullet wound. It’s time to pull off the bandage and heal the patient, once and for all.
Ruben Navarrette
Share
. . .
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
More from Ruben
Commentary
Our commentary partners will help you reach your own conclusions on complex topics.
Don’t get too excited about the new lithium deposit found in the US
12 hrs ago
Peter Zeihan
How shifting Russian targets impact global economy
Friday
Peter Zeihan
What explains West African coups? Will France respond?
Thursday
Peter Zeihan
Chinese housing overbuild may erode support for Xi Jinping
Wednesday
Peter Zeihan
It’s time to dispel the myth that affirmative action helps minorities
Nov 01, 2022
Share
. . .
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
By
Some legal observers believe the Supreme Court may overturn affirmative action policies currently in place at America’s universities. The justices are hearing challenges to admissions practices at Harvard and the University of North Carolina. Straight Arrow News contributor Ruben Navarrette has a personal connection to affirmative action and was once supportive of it. He no longer feels that way, and says it’s time to dispel the myth that affirmative action actually helps minorities.
New Rule. White men are not allowed to talk about affirmative action. Not ever, unless they know what the heck they’re talking about. Most don’t. But that doesn’t stop them, of course from spouting off about a topic that they don’t fully understand. In the nearly 40 years that I’ve discussed and written about preferential treatment of college admissions, as opposed to an employment or government contracts, I’ve heard white men spin some fantastical yarns.
Affirmative action is not “reverse discrimination” as they claim. Nor is it part of some massive conspiracy to oppress white men. Affirmative action does not amount to admitting people to college based on race or ethnicity alone. And nor is a kind of cosmic bureaucratic payback for past sins.
Expect to hear more madness in the weeks and months to come. The Supreme Court recently heard arguments in the case, Students for Fair Admissions v. President and Fellows of Harvard College. Plaintiffs accused Harvard of discriminating against Asians. Rubbish. Asians made up 25.9% of the Harvard class admitted in 2021.
White conservatives such as radio host Hugh Hewitt, say Harvard wants to “limit the upward mobility of Asian Americans via the imposition of caps on their admission.” More rubbish. Harvard is a private institution. It’s allowed to make decisions on what it wants its student body to look like. If it decides it doesn’t want a student body that’s 70% Asian, or 70% Latino or 70% Black, for that matter, that’s fair enough. That’s its right.
Two lower federal courts have already ruled in Harvard’s favor, and the amicus briefs submitted on the university’s behalf, included one from the Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund. It rejects the idea that affirmative action hurts Asians and claims that race-neutral admissions “ultimately benefits white applicants.”
Let’s back up a beat and define affirmative action…that I should describe my personal history with the concept. Affirmative action is more than 60 years old. It was on March 6, 1961, that President John F. Kennedy signed Executive Order 10925. It required that U.S. government contractors take “affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and that employees are treated during employment without regard to their race, creed, color, or national origin.”
Americans have argued about the concept ever since. Three times over the last six decades, the Supreme Court has given colleges and universities permission to take the race ethnicity of applicants into account, as long as it’s just one factor among many in the admissions process.
In 1978, in Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, the justices struck down a quota at UC-Davis Medical School, but said race could be considered. In 2003, in Grutter v. Bollinger, the Court upheld the admissions policy at the University of Michigan Law School. In 2016 in Fisher v. University of Texas, the justices decided it was okay for UT-Austin to consider race and mission.
My own personal relationship with affirmative action goes back to the fall of 1984, when I was a 17-year-old high school senior. As a Mexican-American with perfect grades and advanced placement courses, I was accepted by five elite universities, including Harvard, which I would eventually attend. This inspired white friends whose grades weren’t as good as mine, to tell me that I would not have been admitted had I not been Mexican.
For a long time I stood by affirmative action, maybe out of loyalty, but over the last 20 years, not so much. Gradually, I’ve become convinced that when applied to0 aggressively, a program that was intended to benefit Latinos and African-Americans can actually hurt them. It labels beneficiaries as unqualified, lowers academic standards, and masks the failures of the K-12 public schools to properly educate black and brown students.
Get it straight. Affirmative action is not an attack on whites and Asians. It’s a band-aid on a bullet wound. It’s time to pull off the bandage and heal the patient, once and for all.
Biden’s hardline immigration policies too similar to Trump’s
The Biden administration has made adjustments to the immigration policies left behind by former President Trump, such as the removal of the “Remain in Mexico” rule. But one fundamental similarity is the challenge migrants face in applying for asylum at the southern border. Straight Arrow News contributor Ruben Navarrette delves into the potential handling of
Tuesday
If Biden bows out, Gavin Newsom might be best replacement
As the 2024 presidential election nears, concerns about President Joe Biden’s age and Vice President Kamala Harris’ readiness to step in are emerging. California Gov. Gavin Newsom, a successful Democrat, is reassuring voters that Biden can win again. Straight Arrow News contributor Ruben Navarrette argues that if Biden bows out of the race, Newsom, with
Sep 19
Why the lackluster response to affirmative action ruling?
The United States Supreme Court recently struck down affirmative action in admissions processes for U.S. colleges and universities. It was the biggest defeat for affirmative action advocates in recent history. Straight Arrow News contributor Ruben Navarrette remarks on the unimpressive public response to such a historic defeat and explores some of the reasons why the
Sep 12
Did DeSantis’s policies contribute to racist Jacksonville killings?
In the aftermath of the racist shootings in Tallahassee, Florida, Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) faced a chorus of boos as he attempted to speak at a vigil honoring the victims. Despite asserting his party’s stance against racist violence in the state, some critics point to DeSantis’s policies, which oppose “wokeness” and alter the way Black
Sep 5
Here’s why Biden doesn’t get credit for his accomplishments
President Joe Biden’s White House has highlighted several achievements in service to the American people, like reducing their expenses, altering the trajectory of the COVID-19 pandemic and revitalizing U.S. infrastructure. Despite these accomplishments, recent polls show a majority of Americans seem to be placing greater emphasis on other intangibles, such as President Biden’s age. Straight Arrow News
Aug 29
Media Miss
Stories each side is underreporting
North Dakota state senator, his wife and 2 children die in Utah plane crash
16 sources | 0% from the left
Trump’s civil fraud trial in New York to get down to business after fiery first day
11 sources | 0% from the right
Latest Opinions
Getty Images
Dem. Rep. Phillips leaves leadership post after pushing for Biden challenger
Watch 2:48
10 hrs ago
AP Images
Hundreds of migrants housed at O’Hare as Chicago deals with ongoing crisis
Watch 2:54
10 hrs ago
Getty Images
With home insurance premiums through the roof, some homeowners go ‘naked’
Watch 3:01
12 hrs ago
Getty Images
‘Beware!’: Tom Hanks warns of AI ad using his likeness
Watch 1:34
17 hrs ago
Reuters
Calif. Gov. Newsom appoints Laphonza Butler to fill Feinstein’s Senate seat
Watch 1:21
18 hrs ago
Popular Opinions
In addition to the facts, we believe it’s vital to hear perspectives from all sides of the political spectrum.
Trump only winner as Republicans falter in second debate
14 hrs ago
David Pakman
Chinese disappearances are no mere coincidence
14 hrs ago
Larry Lindsey
Politics of lesser evils is bad for all Americans
Friday
Dr. Rashad Richey
How a No Labels candidate might affect outcome of 2024 election
Thursday
John Fortier
Politics
Dem. Rep. Phillips leaves leadership post after pushing for Biden challenger
10 hrs ago
Calif. Gov. Newsom appoints Laphonza Butler to fill Feinstein’s Senate seat
Shutdown averted but Congress faces new challenges: The Morning Rundown, Oct. 2, 2023
Getty Images
U.S.
Hundreds of migrants housed at O’Hare as Chicago deals with ongoing crisis
10 hrs ago
‘Beware!’: Tom Hanks warns of AI ad using his likeness
California city first in nation to recognize legal rights of elephants
AP Images
International
Cuban officials call Molotov cocktail attack on its US embassy terrorism
Tuesday
Canadian lawmakers apologize after celebrating Ukrainian Nazi fighter
Nicaragua’s Catholic president is persecuting members of his own religion
Reuters
Tech
TikTok workers: China may have more control over user data than we think
Thursday
Musk makes cuts to X election integrity team
Ford pauses construction on $3.5 billion EV battery plant
Getty Images