Supreme Court strikes down affirmative action programs at UNC and Harvard

The AA+PI community has been used as pawns by opponents in the case, while most are in favor of the practice

Kashish Bastola, a rising sophomore at Harvard University speaks outside of the U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday in response to the court's ruling that race-conscious admissions programs at Harvard and the University of North Carolina are unconstitutional, setting precedent for affirmative action in other universities and colleges.

Kent Nishimura/Los Angeles Times via Getty Images

Words by Samantha Pak

The U.S. Supreme Court has struck down affirmative action programs at the University of North Carolina (UNC) and Harvard University.

The decision came Thursday and is a culmination of a decades-long effort to end race-based consideration in the college admissions process. The votes came out 6-3 in the UNC case and 6-2 in the Harvard case from the conservative-majority court, with the justices voting along political leanings: conservative Justices John Roberts, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett voted to get rid of affirmative action; and liberal Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson voted to keep it (Jackson was recused from the Harvard case).

Responses to the court’s decision have also fallen along political lines, with conservatives praising the decision and liberals voicing their opposition. Following the decision, President Joe Biden tweeted, “I strongly disagree with this decision.” And while this may have been the court’s decision, in additional tweets, he emphasized that it cannot “change what America stands for” and that this is “not the last word.”

AA+PIs’ relationship with affirmative action is complicated. As previously reported, 69 percent of our community supports the practice, but there is still a substantial amount of opposition—with immigrant parents who arrived in the United States in the 1990s or later (and are likely unaware of this country’s racial history that has left Black and brown people at an extreme disadvantage compared to whites) among the most outspoken. In addition, AA+PIs have been used by affirmative action opponents to allege that such practices discriminate against us.

In reality, these opponents (namely Students for Fair Admissions president Edward Blum) have been utilizing the model minority myth to defend racial hierarchies and pit BIPOC communities against each other. In short, it’s white supremacy at work.

Many AA+PI individuals and organizations have spoken up against the ruling, according to NBC News, saying white supremacists used our community as “pawns in their efforts—weaponizing the model minority myth to divide our communities.”

The Asian Americans Advancing Justice (Advancing Justice) has denounced the court’s decision. The organization, which is an affiliation of five independent Asian American civil rights organizations from across the country, released a statement Thursday saying they have “long advocated for race-conscious admissions policies as an essential tool to provide equal opportunities for students of color, including Asian Americans.” The organization described the decision as a “deep blow to students and racial equity in education.”

In the statement, Aarti Kohli, executive director of Advancing Justice - Asian Law Caucus, adds that the ruling ignores the country’s long history and present reality of systematically denying people of color, particularly Black people, equal access to education.

“For Asian Americans, this ruling will particularly harm Pacific Islander, Native Hawaiian, and Southeast Asian communities who continue to face significant barriers to higher education.”

“Racism and anti-Blackness are inescapable in our country, and race-conscious admissions are a crucial tool in expanding opportunities for students of color that reckons with those realities,” she says. “For Asian Americans, this ruling will particularly harm Pacific Islander, Native Hawaiian, and Southeast Asian communities who continue to face significant barriers to higher education. At a moment when our country is increasingly segregated and there are significant gaps in resources for majority minority schools, we call on Congress, our local elected leaders, and universities to do everything in their power to implement solutions we really need for economic equity and racial justice in our nation.”

While many opponents have argued that affirmative action has been responsible for white students losing their spots at colleges and universities to less qualified Black and brown students, the reality is that white women have actually been the biggest beneficiaries—”white women” even started trending on Twitter in response to the decision to remind everyone who has really benefited from affirmative action. Human rights lawyer and author Qasim Rashid also broke things down to show which admissions practices were really responsible for students losing spots at colleges and universities.

With the court’s decision, politicians and advocates are emphasizing the need to double down on efforts toward educational equity.

In a statement, the San Francisco-based organization, Chinese for Affirmative Action (CAA) notes that the ruling is limited to race-conscious admissions and doesn’t include “other important measures such as targeted outreach and recruitment, or ensuring more diverse faculty and college leadership.” CAA also urges colleges and universities to ensure racial justice for students on campus, including “measures such as eliminating the use of racially-biased SAT and ACT scores in undergraduate admissions, eliminating legacy admissions that exclude students of color, providing financial support to low-income students, and strengthening targeted recruitment efforts to underrepresented student populations.”

And while the decision might be discouraging for students of color, according to NBC News, this shouldn’t stop them from applying to selective schools. If anything, it’s more important than ever that they apply, the report states. After all, race is just one factor these institutions look at during the admissions process.

Published on June 29, 2023

Words by Samantha Pak

Samantha Pak (she/her) is an award-winning Cambodian American journalist from the Seattle area and co-editor in chief for JoySauce. She spends more time than she’ll admit shopping for books than actually reading them, and has made it her mission to show others how amazing Southeast Asian people are. Follow her on Twitter at @iam_sammi and on Instagram at @sammi.pak.