The U.S. Supreme Court is poised to rule before the end of June on two cases challenging the use of affirmative action in college admissions at Harvard University and the University of North Carolina.

Most experts believe that the conservative majority, who holds a 6-3 advantage, will rule against the schools, possibly dismantling a 40-year legal precedent that supports consideration of race in college admissions.

Depending on how the court rules, the impact on diversity in higher education could be significant.

Many schools that, for the last 45 years, have considered race as one factor in their assessment of applicants maintain that this is essential for building a diverse campus.

States where affirmative action in college admissions has been banned, like California, have tried other measures to open access to minority students but say that nothing works as well as race-informed affirmative action.

(Above, l-r): Lisa Holder, President of Equal Justice Society (EJS); Thomas A. Saenz, President and General Counsel of the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF); John C. Yang, President and Executive Director of Asian Americans Advancing Justice (AAAJ); and Michele Siqueiros, President of The Campaign for College Opportunity. (EMS)

At an Ethnic Media Services briefing, held May 26, experts – Lisa Holder, President of Equal Justice Society (EJS); Thomas A. Saenz, President and General Counsel of the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF); John C. Yang, President and Executive Director of Asian Americans Advancing Justice (AAAJ); and Michele Siqueiros, President of The Campaign for College Opportunity­ – explained the impact of the impending legal ruling, and discussed alternatives to achieving diversity without this important tool.

Talking about a possible negative ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court, Lisa Holder, President of Equal Justice Society, said, “Do not prejudge the outcome. We’re dealing with two cases. A case against Harvard, and a case against the University of North Carolina (UNC). These cases are complex they are multi-layered and the two cases are divergent, so we shouldn’t assume that whatever decision comes down is going to be some uniform blanket opinion that completely guts affirmative action.”

“At the same time, it’s important to be prepared and to be proactive. The Civil Rights Coalition always prioritizes preparedness. We have to be prepared to protect and defend the civil rights, gains in equity, belonging, and multiculturalism, that our civil rights forebears fought and died for, and yes, one of those civil rights gains that our forebears fought and died for is affirmative action,” said Holder.

“In the state of California, we banned affirmative action in education, government hiring, and government contracting.

“In the business and contracting field, we saw that black, brown, and women-owned businesses were decimated by the ban on affirmative action. The Equal justice Society commissioned a study that showed that black, brown, and women-owned businesses lost billions of dollars over the last 20 some odd years, and those businesses which often were the only businesses that were serving marginalized and underserved communities, when those businesses failed, poverty deepened in marginalized and underserved communities.

“The racial wealth gap which had already been horrific, expanded because of the ban on affirmative action in California with respect to education because of the ban on affirmative action in preschool through 12.

“Our public universities in the state of California became less diverse and several generations of college students lost access to opportunity that diversity offers,” said Holder.

“We also need to look at eliminating standardized testing such as the SAT and the ACT. EJS was one of the organizations that brought litigation against the UC system to eliminate the SAT and the ACT, and we won and were able to force the schools and compel,” said Holder.

“We also need to look at tools like reparations preparations for black students and that includes targeted programs and scholarships that increase black students access to a fair education and access to opportunity.

“We must look at a broader policy of expanding the Supreme Court. If we see that our Supreme Court is susceptible to corruption and partisanship that interferes with the proper functioning of our democracy, then we need to consider expanding it to create an ideological balance consistent with the checks and balance. Checks and balances construct that our government was founded on,” said Holder.

Thomas A. Saenz, President and General Counsel of the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, showed his concern in the matter, insisting on being prepared for an unfriendly outcome.

“Given what we know about the conservative justices’ prior views on the issue of race conscious affirmative action, without assuming an outcome, I want you to be prepared should the court do what it might do in overturning that 45-year-old precedent. I want to cite from experience in California because California was the first state 26-and-a-half years ago with proposition 209 to eliminate race conscious and gender conscious affirmative action in education, employment, and contracting,” said Saenz.

“We saw firsthand in California how prop 209 was over interpreted, or misinterpreted by those from the right, and by others who are misinformed, so that its impact was greater than it should have been.

“The myth about what prop 209 meant overcame the reality of its proper interpretation. I am concerned that the same could happen here when folks from the right will positively assert that the decision,” said Saenz.

“We all know that last year in Dobbs, this court overturned a 49-years-old precedent in Roe versus Wade. If they rule against race conscious affirmative action, they will be overturning a 45-years-old precedent in Baki versus UC Regents. It’s important to note that after Baki the court has already revisited the issue of race conscious affirmative action at least three times and on each of those occasions the court majority reasserted that the Baki precedent continues to be the law.

“The Baki president precedent allows limited tailored consideration of race among other factors in making higher education admissions decisions, so overturning that precedent would be extraordinary, and at par with the jobs decision of last year,” said Saenz.

John C. Yang, President and Executive Director of Asian Americans Advancing Justice, chimed in on Thomas’s message about the misinformation that is likely to come out of these decisions. “Our national future depends on racial equity and diversity in higher education to achieve a thriving multi-racial democracy, and if these decisions limits race conscious admission policy, we will all suffer, particularly black and brown community, but also Asian Americans,” said Yang.

“We must all work together to achieve that goal, no matter how the Supreme Court rules. Diversity benefits everyone. It lends itself to new perspectives, empathy, better mental health, Innovation, and economic growth,” said Yang.

“It is important to remember that talent is everywhere, and it is incumbent upon all of us to ensure that we create real pathways to opportunities. Over two-thirds of Asian Americans support affirmative action, and support race conscience admissions policies, and recognize the benefits of affirmative action, not only for our own communities, but for all communities.

“It is also important to recognize who is driving these lawsuits. The person that is driving these lawsuits is a person named Ed Blum, a white male, who is trying to weaponize these policies and trying to divide our communities,” said Yang.

“The Harvard Asian American class has doubled. In the last 30 years, it has more than quadrupled, over the time in which the Baki decision was first issued, so any suggestion that somehow Asian American are being discriminated against is just the lie by these simple facts.

“If Harvard was to stop considering race, it would cause a significant decrease in the racial diversity of Harvard students. The share of black students in the admitted class for example would decline from 14 to 60 percent and the share of Latino students would decline for 14 to 9 percent.

“The Supreme Court has long recognized that colleges and universities have a compelling interest in the numerous benefits that flow from a diverse student body that is representative and reflective of our increasingly multi-racial and pluralistic society.

“The evidence supplied by the opposition, from the plaintiffs in this case, have been refuted and that is something we need to continually cite to, notwithstanding attempts by the plaintiffs to suggest that the record somehow proves discrimination.

“At the end of the day, we must recognize that we are not in a race-blind society. Our lived experiences should not be up for debate and now threatened by those wanting to use Asia, the Asian American Community for their own ill-gotten political gains.

“Race conscious admissions policies have created superior learning environments for all students, including Asian Americans student body.

“Diversity promotes cross-racial understanding, reduces racial isolation and hostility, and better prepares students to become future leaders in our multicultural and global society,” said Yang.

“Equal opportunity for all and an inclusive democracy is a universal value, and we will keep advocating for inclusion and access for all communities in higher education, regardless of the Supreme Court’s decision,” said Michele Siqueiros, President of The Campaign for College Opportunity.

“We’re focused on making sure that any negative ruling is not an excuse or permission for universities and colleges to backslide on recent progress and return to an era of unchecked exclusion and segregation which shuts out generations of Black, Latinx, Indigenous and Asian American Pacific Islander students from higher education,” said Siqueiros.