My Thoughts on a couple of the recent United States Supreme Court decisions

By Kimberly Harris, M.Ed.

Distinctive Voice Consulting

August 2023

In two Supreme Court decisions in late June 2023, I find myself mourning the loss of advancement opportunities for BIPOC and low-income people. Specifically, concerning the conservative majority’s votes in the cases of: Students for Fair Admissions versus President and Fellows of Harvard College, Students for Fair Admission versus University of North Carolina, Biden versus Nebraska, and the Department of Education versus Brown. The decision to eliminate programs that allow for race-based admissions in colleges and the rejection of Biden’s student loan forgiveness program are two decisions that I fear take America backwards and decrease opportunities to create equity by leveling the playing field.

For review, the Students for Fair Admissions versus President and Fellows of Harvard College, and Students for Fair Admission versus University of North Carolina are cases that involve considering race in college admissions. Race based college admissions were programs that stemmed from affirmative action programs, which were created to offset past racial wrong doings against black and brown people. The programs utilized race as a consideration in admissions to mitigate the effects of systemic racism. Race based consideration in admissions expanded admissions criteria to look at a student’s background to include mitigating circumstances. Such mitigating circumstances may have included financial barriers, family struggles, and primary and secondary attending schools with low budgets that may have affected their college admissions test scores and grade point averages. The idea was to recruit, educate and graduate minority students with the propensity to excel in college despite their challenging circumstances: students who, otherwise would not have been considered for top tier colleges based on grades and admissions test scores.

Why am I passionate about this issue? Because I was one of these students. I was raised with mitigating circumstances yet had the academic ability to excel in school. Despite lower than desired standardized test scores on the SAT, I was able to graduate with honors from two of the top schools in the country.

Most college admissions requirements stem from the original purpose of college which was to educate Christian white men. Fast-forward to today and college has become a dream of the masses where people know that advanced education is the ticket to better employment opportunities and increased income earning potential. Standardized tests were multiple choice mental tests created to categorize, sort, and route the population. But whose mind created the test to sort people? Who created the criteria for the evaluation of who scored well and who did not? Those whose thinking matches the logic and reasoning of the test creator, do well, while those who have a diversity of thought or experience from the mind of the test creator, do not. It is no secret that standardized college admissions exams have been labeled bias and that some schools have relaxed the requirement on these exams.

Allowing colleges to look at the whole student for college admissions is a more just way of evaluating a student’s ability in college and creates increased diversity. Diversity in college and in schools have been proven to improve the education of the students. As such, education administrators now understand the importance of diversity in schools and will find other means to define diversity for the sake of better academic outcomes for all. People who think that banning race in admissions will give them a greater chance for admissions over someone who comes from lower educational pedigree will be greatly disappointed. The myth of meritocracy is just that, a myth. The students with the highest-grade point averages and the highest standardized test scores may not be the best student for a particular college. We need to continue to look at the whole student, their background and challenges they overcame to create a well-rounded student body in higher education. Was this decision by the Supreme Court in line with the American public? According to recent news polls, most white and Asian people agree with the decision while Latinos are split and most African-American people disagree with the decision. It appears that public opinion is self-serving here with those who believe they will benefit from the decision supporting it while those who think they will be disadvantaged by the decision not supporting the Supreme Court’s decision. But when making these decisions we need to think of the greater good and creating the best learning environment for students which diversity has been proven to do.

To recap Biden v. Nebraska and Department of Education v. Brown, these cases involve student loan debt relief for millions of Americans who borrowed money to attend college and improve their lives. From an equity, diversity, and inclusion standpoint, I find this decision disheartening. In my humble opinion, undergraduate education, like the K-12 education, should be free to those who show the propensity to graduate. Professional schools should be subsidized and society should encourage the education of its citizenry because it is better for people to have the ability to financially support themselves and in turn the ability to pay taxes to support our economy and government.

A poor, uneducated society does not serve the society well. Look at third world countries, as an example. Our government should be able to support individual society needs in a similar fashion to how we support big business. There are theories abound about how trickle-down economics do not work and greatly contribute to income inequality, making the rich richer and the poor poorer, while the middle class gets erased. Because of America’s love affair with individual responsibility versus community collaboration, only two in five people support Biden’s debt forgiveness program of up to $20K for individuals earning less than $125k per year and couples earning less than $250k per year. Student loan debt is a tax on the middle class that punishes middle and low-income people for not having the family wealth necessary to go to college without student loans. It is a vicious cycle where the rich have the financial capital to earn an education to continue their wealth journey while the have-nots borrow money for college which saddles them with debt upon completing college (if they do finish) and hinders their financial growth. 

I believe in a hybrid approach to society. There should be individual responsibility with a twist. We must have a system to broaden the circle of opportunity to for those who were not born to wealthy families. We must create opportunity for those capable in society. As we do so, we explore greater growth for our community and society. Who knows what gifts and talents that child born into poverty can offer our society: a cure for cancer, the solution to climate change, or perhaps being a game changer or community builder who writes blogs to give people different perspectives to make the world a better place?

If you are interested in training and more conversations about equity and inclusion, please contact me at DistinctiveVoiceConsulting@gmail.com or visit my website www.DistinctiveVoiceConsulting.com

###