The higher-education establishment has long said that it has a “compelling interest” in having a “diverse” student body and therefore uses racial preferences in admissions to make sure that schools have “enough” students from some groups and “not too many” from others. Such preferential- admissions schemes are under attack in the courts, and the Supreme Court has the opportunity to rule against them in cases involving Harvard and the University of North Carolina.
In today’s Martin Center article, Wenyuan Wu explains the crucial points in the amicus brief her organization (Californians for Equal Rights Foundation) has filed with the Court. She identifies the fatal flaw in the Court’s previous “affirmative action” rulings, which paid lip service to the concept of “strict scrutiny” but actually trashed it: “In reality, the paradigm of strict scrutiny has translated into an incoherent and illogical set of conflicting standards, chiefly because Supreme Court rulings in affirmative action cases (Grutter v. Bollinger, Fisher I, and Fisher II) have consistently given universities the authority to justify racial discrimination. In other words, courts have deferred to universities and colleges to make academic judgments on whether race-based affirmative action is warranted.”
Instead of deferring to institutions like Harvard and UNC, the Court ought to defer to the great majority of Americans who believe that racial preferences are a bad policy.
Why not let the “diversity” bandwagon roll on? Wu writes:
Clearly, supporters of enforced racial diversity represent a factional passion in direct conflict with the rule of law. Instead of satisfying a compelling public interest, their version of diversity has legitimized a multi-billion-dollar, largely unregulated industry. Collectively, industry players channel both public funds and private money towards university bureaucrats, market consultants, non-profit associations, and accreditation agencies to perpetuate the inaccurate presumption that racial proportionality is a public good with key educational benefits. Ironically, just like the prolonged failings of race-based affirmative action, the insatiable desire for racial diversity does not guarantee intended results.
Racial preferences have proven to be one of our worst mistakes. Will the Court have the guts to undo them?