The progressives who oversee admissions on most campuses have too much invested in diversity, equity and inclusion to stop now.
Your editorial “Race, Harvard and the Supreme Court” (Jan. 25) argues that “the progressive zeal for divvying up people by race, ethnicity and sexuality has increased.” But it is slavery, Jim Crow, lynching, the Ku Klux Klan and its followers (Proud Boys, Oath Keepers, QAnon), and persistent structural racism (exclusionary zoning, reliance on property taxes to pay for K-12 public education) that has long divvied up people by race and continues to do so today. Progressives wish they had such power.
The editorial concludes with the right’s favorite Supreme Court quote: “The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” Is it really that difficult to distinguish between practices that have had the intent and effect of perpetuating racial inequality (school segregation, legacy admissions, voter suppression) and those aimed at ameliorating levels and costs of racial inequality?
As Justice Harry Blackmun argued in Bakke (1978), “In order to get beyond racism, we must first take race into account.” Removing barriers to opportunity is not equivalent to creating those barriers. I hope the Supreme Court will learn this simple lesson.
Prof. Gregory D. Squires
George Washington University
Washington
The colleges that discriminate on the basis of race rationalize their actions as promoting “diversity.” If true, why do they practice segregation on campus? I have in mind
segregated dorms, dining, race- and gender-exclusive clubs and instructors who discourage “outsiders” from enrolling in race- or gender-based courses. Separately, while the admission of unqualified applicants may play to the vanity of the faculty and administration, it is cruel and divisive for the students.
Winford Naylor
Santa Barbara, Calif.
Jason Riley is optimistic that the Supreme Court has “A Chance to Remove Race From College Admissions” (Upward Mobility, Jan. 26). But the progressives who oversee admissions on most campuses have too much invested in diversity, equity and inclusion to let the Supreme Court interfere with their race-based gerrymandering.
If, after a loss in court, SAT scores stand in the way of their ideal of a perfectly racially diversified student body, admissions staff can either eliminate SAT scores from the evaluation process or count on the College Board to redesign the test. A Supreme Court ruling against race-conscious admission policies will be a satisfying but Pyrrhic victory for those who still cling to the ideal of a colorblind America.
