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 public backlash against the decision has been relatively calm and quiet.
Supporters of affirmative action predicted that people of color, especially Latinos and African Americans, would take to the streets and express their outrage, why they might even, it was speculated, take their complaints directly to the steps of the Supreme Court and put the spotlight on the judiciary.
What happened? Not much. There was nary a whimper in response to this really momentous Supreme Court decision. Frankly, I myself expected more.
Affirmative action college admissions is a big deal. It’s been around for almost 60 years, starting up a few years after affirmative action contracting began in 1961. It was in the 1970s, and 80s, considered a very controversial topic. But time passes and passions cool.
In 2023, there are now at least three generations that have come along since the invention of affirmative action: Generation X, the millennials, and Generation Z. Why do you suppose affirmative action means so little to most of the people in those groups who are now between the ages of 15 and 55? Well, these generations never bought into affirmative action, and so they’re not invested in it.
The public reaction to the end of affirmative action and college university admissions was like the dog that didn’t bark or protest or complain or pushback or raise hell. What happened? Why wasn’t there more of an outcry when those who oppose taking race into account to ease racial inequity finally succeeded in toppling a policy they never liked? Not from the beginning? Well, I have a theory. Before I share it. Here’s a reminder of how we got here. It’s been nearly three months since the majority of the Supreme Court made up of six conservative justices bought in to the fantastical argument offered up by the conservative activist group students for fair admissions. The group claim that Asians who make up between 20 and 30% of the student population at many top universities are the new oppressed minority in suing Harvard and the University of North Carolina over their admissions policies. Plaintiffs demanded a colorblind process and a decision head down at the end of June, the right wing justices obliged, disregarding the facts and the law, they let politics be their guide in striking down the practice. Supporters of affirmative action predicted that people of color especially Latinos and African Americans would take to the streets and express their outrage, why they might even it was speculated, take their complaints directly to the steps of the Supreme Court and put the spotlight on the Judiciary. What happened? Not much, there was nary a whimper in response to this really momentous Supreme Court decision. Frankly, I myself expected more. Affirmative Action college admissions is a big deal. It’s been around for almost 60 years, starting up a few years after affirmative action contracting began in 1961. It was in 1970s, and 80s, considered a very controversial topic. But time passes and passions cool. In 2023, there are now at least three generations that have come along since the invention of affirmative action, Generation X, the millennials, and Generation Z. Why do you suppose affirmative action means so little to most of the people in those groups who are now between the ages of 15 and 55? Well, these generations never bought into affirmative action, and so they’re not invested in it. It was probably much different in the 1970s. When Black and Brown members of the baby boom now in their 70s, or the silent generation now in their 80s used affirmative action to break into the police department or state government, or maybe even a corporate job. They usually felt grateful for the opportunity and they created affirmative action for the break. By the time I entered the job market after college in the 1990s, the drawbridge had come up a bit. Corporations, media companies, law firms and alike had figured out they have to lower standards in order to sprinkle a little color in their workplace. They could just continue to hire badass super qualified people, including a few minorities here and there and call it macaroni. Consequently, those who got through the gate felt less and less indebted to affirmative action. They knew that they had gotten there on their own steam. And so they didn’t feel like they had to go through life bending the knee to white liberal bureaucrats. And there was another thing, the numbers and percentages, the population of Latinos and African Americans in the United States kept growing over the last 30 years. But only a relative few were admitted to university X or higher bike Corporation. Why? So the constituency of affirmative action began to shrink, relative to the overall non white population in the country. This meant that, unlike the current debate over easing student loan debt, in which 10s of millions of people feel as if they have a personal stake, the debate over whether or not we should preserve affirmative action is confined mainly to the elites at all up and it’s easy to see why, when the Supreme Court gutted affirmative action college admissions, few people were angry. Few people even noticed
In addition to the facts, we believe it’s vital to hear perspectives from all sides of the political spectrum. We hope these different voices will help you reach your own conclusions.
The opinions published in this section are solely those of the contributors and do not reflect the views of Straight Arrow News.
Ruben Navarrette
Share
. . .
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
More from Ruben
Commentary
Our commentary partners will help you reach your own conclusions on complex topics.
Hydrogen as clean energy source not ready for prime time
9 hrs ago
Peter Zeihan
Railroads are more about political power than economic
Yesterday
Peter Zeihan
Why Azerbaijan launched a military operation against Armenia
Tuesday
Peter Zeihan
China’s collapse years in the making, not an overnight event
Tuesday
Peter Zeihan
Why the lackluster response to affirmative action ruling?
Sep 12
Share
. . .
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
By
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 public backlash against the decision has been relatively calm and quiet.
Supporters of affirmative action predicted that people of color, especially Latinos and African Americans, would take to the streets and express their outrage, why they might even, it was speculated, take their complaints directly to the steps of the Supreme Court and put the spotlight on the judiciary.
What happened? Not much. There was nary a whimper in response to this really momentous Supreme Court decision. Frankly, I myself expected more.
Affirmative action college admissions is a big deal. It’s been around for almost 60 years, starting up a few years after affirmative action contracting began in 1961. It was in the 1970s, and 80s, considered a very controversial topic. But time passes and passions cool.
In 2023, there are now at least three generations that have come along since the invention of affirmative action: Generation X, the millennials, and Generation Z. Why do you suppose affirmative action means so little to most of the people in those groups who are now between the ages of 15 and 55? Well, these generations never bought into affirmative action, and so they’re not invested in it.
The public reaction to the end of affirmative action and college university admissions was like the dog that didn’t bark or protest or complain or pushback or raise hell. What happened? Why wasn’t there more of an outcry when those who oppose taking race into account to ease racial inequity finally succeeded in toppling a policy they never liked? Not from the beginning? Well, I have a theory. Before I share it. Here’s a reminder of how we got here. It’s been nearly three months since the majority of the Supreme Court made up of six conservative justices bought in to the fantastical argument offered up by the conservative activist group students for fair admissions. The group claim that Asians who make up between 20 and 30% of the student population at many top universities are the new oppressed minority in suing Harvard and the University of North Carolina over their admissions policies. Plaintiffs demanded a colorblind process and a decision head down at the end of June, the right wing justices obliged, disregarding the facts and the law, they let politics be their guide in striking down the practice. Supporters of affirmative action predicted that people of color especially Latinos and African Americans would take to the streets and express their outrage, why they might even it was speculated, take their complaints directly to the steps of the Supreme Court and put the spotlight on the Judiciary. What happened? Not much, there was nary a whimper in response to this really momentous Supreme Court decision. Frankly, I myself expected more. Affirmative Action college admissions is a big deal. It’s been around for almost 60 years, starting up a few years after affirmative action contracting began in 1961. It was in 1970s, and 80s, considered a very controversial topic. But time passes and passions cool. In 2023, there are now at least three generations that have come along since the invention of affirmative action, Generation X, the millennials, and Generation Z. Why do you suppose affirmative action means so little to most of the people in those groups who are now between the ages of 15 and 55? Well, these generations never bought into affirmative action, and so they’re not invested in it. It was probably much different in the 1970s. When Black and Brown members of the baby boom now in their 70s, or the silent generation now in their 80s used affirmative action to break into the police department or state government, or maybe even a corporate job. They usually felt grateful for the opportunity and they created affirmative action for the break. By the time I entered the job market after college in the 1990s, the drawbridge had come up a bit. Corporations, media companies, law firms and alike had figured out they have to lower standards in order to sprinkle a little color in their workplace. They could just continue to hire badass super qualified people, including a few minorities here and there and call it macaroni. Consequently, those who got through the gate felt less and less indebted to affirmative action. They knew that they had gotten there on their own steam. And so they didn’t feel like they had to go through life bending the knee to white liberal bureaucrats. And there was another thing, the numbers and percentages, the population of Latinos and African Americans in the United States kept growing over the last 30 years. But only a relative few were admitted to university X or higher bike Corporation. Why? So the constituency of affirmative action began to shrink, relative to the overall non white population in the country. This meant that, unlike the current debate over easing student loan debt, in which 10s of millions of people feel as if they have a personal stake, the debate over whether or not we should preserve affirmative action is confined mainly to the elites at all up and it’s easy to see why, when the Supreme Court gutted affirmative action college admissions, few people were angry. Few people even noticed
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
Tuesday
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
Ramaswamy is tone deaf when talking about race
Republican presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy trails former President Donald Trump and Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) in the polls. Ramaswamy’s platform, which includes tightening security along the southern border and endorsing conservative family values, seems to be resonating with GOP voters. Straight Arrow News contributor Ruben Navarrette highlights what he sees as an Achilles’ heel,
Aug 22
Stories each side is underreporting
Ukraine Suspends Spokeswoman From US Over Unapproved Comments
17 sources | 13% from the left
Departure of Murdoch as Fox leader comes as conservative media landscape is increasingly fractured
13 sources | 11% from the right
Latest Stories
AP Images
Authorities say China is actively training to block US assistance to Taiwan
Watch 1:36
5 hrs ago
U.S. Air Force
Senate confirms top military nominees, Tuberville says his hold will continue
Watch 2:41
5 hrs ago
AP Images
AG Garland’s testimony got heated as Republicans, Democrats traded barbs
Watch 10:55
5 hrs ago
Getty Images
What’s the difference between a government shutdown and debt default?
Watch 1:18
7 hrs ago
Straight Arrow News
MindGym helping Air and Space Forces get mental reps
Watch 4:10
7 hrs ago
Popular Opinions
In addition to the facts, we believe it’s vital to hear perspectives from all sides of the political spectrum.
Old age aside, it’s clear why Biden trumps Trump
8 hrs ago
Jordan Reid
Trump’s immigration deterrence policy more humane than Biden’s
10 hrs ago
Timothy Carney
Biden’s use of fake names raises new questions
Yesterday
Newt Gingrich
California’s vital food safety ban takes aim at America’s health crisis
Yesterday
Adrienne Lawrence
Latest Opinions
In addition to the facts, we believe it’s vital to hear perspectives from all sides of the political spectrum. We hope these different voices will help you reach your own conclusions.
The opinions published in this section are solely those of the contributors and do not reflect the views of Straight Arrow News.
Jordan Reid
Author; Founding Editor, Ramshackle GlamTimothy Carney
Timothy Carney, Senior Fellow, American Enterprise InstituteWeekly Voices
Monday
David Pakman
Host of The David Pakman ShowLarry Lindsey
President & CEO, The Lindsey GroupTuesday
Ruben Navarrette
Columnist, host & authorBen Weingarten
Federalist Senior Contributor; Claremont Institute FellowWednesday
Adrienne Lawrence
Legal commentatorNewt Gingrich
Former House Speaker; Chairman of Gingrich 360Thursday
Jordan Reid
Author; Founding Editor, Ramshackle GlamTimothy Carney
Timothy Carney, Senior Fellow, American Enterprise InstituteOther AEI Contributors
John Fortier
Katherine Zimmerman
Matthew Continetti
Robert Doar
Friday
Dr. Rashad Richey
National TV Political Analyst, Talk Radio Host, Univ. Prof.Star Parker
Founder & President, Center for Urban Renewal and EducationPolitics
Senate confirms top military nominees, Tuberville says his hold will continue
5 hrs ago
AG Garland’s testimony got heated as Republicans, Democrats traded barbs
Thousands protest in Canada over controversial gender, sexual education
U.S. Air Force
U.S.
MindGym helping Air and Space Forces get mental reps
7 hrs ago
Government offering more free at-home COVID tests
US granting Venezuelan migrants temporary legal status: The Morning Rundown, Sept. 21, 2023
Straight Arrow News
International
Authorities say China is actively training to block US assistance to Taiwan
5 hrs ago
Railway stops operations after migrants injured as thousands hop trains to US border
Ukraine’s Zelenskyy to UN: Russia should be removed from Security Council
AP Images
Tech
Family sues Google over man’s death after he followed Maps’ directions
10 hrs ago
Is it alive? How AI’s uncanny valley could threaten human interaction
Israel Prime Minister urges Elon Musk to stop hate speech on X
Philip Paxson via FaceBook