# data[].attributes.headline
A Primer on SFFA v. Harvard/UNC - Q&A with National Women's Law Center (from Children, Youth & Family Funders Roundtable)

# data[].attributes.subject
A Primer on SFFA v. Harvard/UNC - Q&A with National Women's Law Center (from Children, Youth & Family Funders Roundtable)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Institutions of higher education can continue to pursue a wide variety of programs and initiatives to foster a diverse student body. This can include :

removal of standardized testing requirements

stronger recruitment efforts within underserved communities

more robust financial support for low-income and middle-income students

greater efforts to recruit, admit, support, and retain first-generation university students

ending "legacy" admissions

UNC Chapel Hill announced free tuition for in-state students whose families make less than $80,000 per year to protect diversity on its campus. Wesleyan University announced an end to "legacy" admissions.

tudents can discuss their race and experiences overcoming barriers related to their race in admissions essays and interviews and institutions of higher education can consider these experiences.

That being said, we can expect ongoing legal assaults on efforts to create diverse and inclusive student bodies. For example, t here have been recent legal challenges to race neutral admissions policies in specialty K-12 schools when these policies were adopted to promote diversity, with cases filed in Virginia, New York, and Massachusetts . These cases challenge efforts to foster a diverse student body through race-neutral initiatives like removing standardized testing requirements.

With regard to the overall application of this ruling, it is important for funders to remember, communicate, and encourage grantees to that this decision is limited to the consideration of race, as a p lus, in college admissions, as Harvard and UNC implemented their admissions programs.

Specifically, this decision did not address affinity groups, outreach initiatives, recruitment strategies, race-neutral admissions policies, or Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) programs. The decision does not change the law applicable to school districts' efforts to increase diversity in K-12 schools including through race-conscious student assignment policies. The decision also does not change workplace anti-discrimination protections or the lawfulness of DEI programs and affirmative action in the workplace. Nor did this decision address the lawfulness of gender-conscious programs or programs taking into account other dimensions of identity beyond race.

We need to use every strategy possible to protect our multiracial democracy. Diversity in education should remain a core value along with ensuring that students from all backgrounds have a fair opportunity to learn and be prepared to become leaders in our institutions and communities. Investing in efforts to expand and defend civil rights protections and diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives-all of which are under attack by extremists-is a key dimension of defending democracy because these protections and initiatives enable broad participation and leadership in our civic life.

These decisions also demonstrate the need for robust commitment to building a progressive judiciary at every level, focusing on both immediate needs and the long arc. Federal district and circuit courts, which decide thousands more cases than the Supreme Court each year, will play a key role in further interpreting and applying the Supreme Court's recent decisions on race-conscious admissions as more challenges work their way through the lower courts.

There are currently dozens of unfilled judicial vacancies across the country, which provide the opportunity to reshape the federal judiciary with judges committed to equal right justice for all, advance gender justice. It is critical that judicial vacancies are filled with nominees committed to equal justice and rights for all who understand the impact of the law on the rights of women, girls, people of color, LGBTQI+ people, and people with disabi lities. Funders can support organizations through engagement in 1) judicial pathways projects that identify and uplift judicial candidates with demographically and professionally diverse backgrounds committed to equal rights and justice for all, and 2) judicial nominations to educate the public and advocate post-nomination for nominees committed to equal justice and rights for all.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
A Primer on SFFA v. Harvard/UNC - Q&A with National Women's Law Center

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Institutions of higher education can continue to pursue a wide variety of programs and initiatives to foster a diverse student body.

# data[].attributes.headline
Research briefs from Campaign for College Opportunity

# data[].attributes.subject
Research briefs from Campaign for College Opportunity

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In June 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court announced a decision to curtail the use of race in college and university admissions, a powerful tool that has been used to address the legacy of racial injustice and advance the inclusion and integration of Latinx, Black, Asian American, Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander (NHPI), and American Indian/Alaska Native (AIAN) students.

In response, the Campaign for College Opportunity has launched a national initiative, Affirming Equity, Ensuring Inclusion, Empowering Action, to promote evidence-based solutions via a series of papers and toolkits that advance more equitable strategies in college preparation, access, and completion, including issues of course placement practices, transfer, and more, to ensure those who have been historically excluded and underserved by our colleges and universities have a real opportunity to go to college and succeed despite the Supreme Court decision.

For more than a year, guided by national experts and scholars, the Campaign has been preparing to ensure that we elevate practices and policies that support greater equity and access to our nation's colleges and universities for Latinx, Black, Asian American, NHPI, and AIAN students in higher education.

Please check back in for monthly publications focused on:

Equitable preparation for college, including an analysis of indicators schools can use to measure and increase college opportunity across their student populations. This brief will include an analysis of access to college preparatory curriculum, FAFSA completion rates, dual enrollment strategies, and math course offerings as an opportunity or hurdle.

Equitable admissions practices in higher education, which includes top percent plans and direct admissions strategies.

Strategies for ensuring a welcoming campus environment

Inclusive hiring of faculty, staff, and college leaders

Financial aid, including an analysis of need-based aid, merit-based aid, equity frameworks, and support for undocumented students.

Strong transfer pathways including an analysis of the Associate Degree for Transfer in California.

Expanding capacity

Course placement for success

Institutional funding strategies to improve outcomes for underserved students

Ensuring strong disaggregated data and analysis

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Affirming Equity, Ensuring Inclusion, and Empowering Action Series | The Campaign for College Opportunity

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In June 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court announced a decision to curtail the use of race in college and university admissions, a powerful tool that has been used to address the legacy of racial injustice and advance the inclusion and integration of Latinx, Black, Asian American, Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander (NHPI), and American Indian/Alaska Native (AIAN) students.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Storytellers, dream weavers, and community builders, this narrative strategy toolkit was designed for you!

This guide will help you get started in thinking about narrative, articulating your narrative strategy, and designing and implementing your narrative projects. By narrative project, we mean any activity that advances narrative goals, including messaging campaigns, social media campaigns, videos, art installations, street theater, deep canvassing, direct actions, mass mobilizations, and more. The tools here will allow you to analyze the narrative terrain, sharpen your narratives, identify and reach your audiences, and choose the most effective forms and platforms to reach those audiences. Although the examples are from the immigration movement, we believe these tools can be applied to many more topics or issues.
Download the Toolkit
We recommend moving through the process and resources as outlined in the toolkit. For easy download, you can also access the stand-alone worksheets included in the toolkit below:
Download the Toolkit
Also available:
Full Report on Phase 1 of the Butterfly Lab for Immigrant Narrative Strategy, including this toolkit Download the Full Report
( Return to the Butterfly Lab Home)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Storytellers, dream weavers, and community builders, this narrative strategy toolkit was designed for you! This guide will help you get started in thinking about narrative, articulating your narrative strategy, and designing and implementing your narrative projects.

# data[].attributes.headline
10 Essential Questions for Workforce Development

# data[].attributes.subject
10 Essential Questions for Workforce Development

# data[].attributes.headline
Racial Equity Readiness Assessment for Workforce Development

# data[].attributes.subject
Racial Equity Readiness Assessment for Workforce Development

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
This guide for workforce development organizations and practitioners helps assess programs, operations, and culture in order to identify strength areas and growth opportunities. Practitioners can use this toolkit to familiarize themselves with various practices and policies that support institutional racial equity, evaluate their current efforts, and plan action steps.
Download the Assessment

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Racial Equity Readiness Assessment for Workforce Development

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This guide for workforce development organizations and practitioners helps assess programs, operations, and culture in order to identify strength areas and growth opportunities. Practitioners can use this toolkit to familiarize themselves with various practices and policies that support institutional racial equity, evaluate their current efforts, and plan action steps.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The United States economy could be $8 trillion larger by 2050 if the country eliminated racial disparities in health, education, incarceration and employment, according to "The Business Case for Racial Equity: A Strategy for Growth." The gains would be equivalent to a continuous boost in GDP growth of 0.5 percent per year, increasing the competitiveness of the country for decades to come. The national study released today by the W.K. Kellogg Foundation (WKKF) and Altarum concludes that while racial inequities needlessly stifle economic growth, there is a path forward.

The report projects a tremendous boost to the country's workforce and consumer spending when organizations take the necessary steps to advance racial equity. Led by Ani Turner, co-director of Sustainable Health Spending Strategies at Altarum, researchers analyzed data from public and private sources, including the U.S. Census, Johns Hopkins University, Georgetown University, Brandeis University and Harvard University. Their methodology included applying established models to estimate the economic impact of the disparities faced by people of color.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The United States economy could be $8 trillion larger by 2050 if the country eliminated racial disparities in health, education, incarceration and employment, according to "The Business Case for Racial Equity: A Strategy for Growth." The gains would be equivalent to a continuous boost in GDP growth of 0.5 percent per year, increasing the competitiveness of the country for decades to come.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Resources to prepare and respond to the Supreme Court’s affirmative action decisions

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This page was last updated on August 14, 2023 The U.S. Supreme Court recently issued landmark decisions in two cases — Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, and Students for Fair Admissions v. University of North Carolina — banning affirmative action in higher education. As an organization seekin…

# data[].attributes.headline
Munger, Tolles, & Olson Memo for Charitable Foundations and Nonprofits

# data[].attributes.subject
Munger, Tolles, & Olson Memo for Charitable Foundations and Nonprofits

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In anticipation of the Supreme Court's upcoming decisions in Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President & Fellows of Harvard College and Students for Fair Admissions v. University of North Carolina, Munger, Tolles & Olson was approached by the Hewlett Foundation to prepare a memorandum preliminarily addressing what implications, if any, the Supreme Court's decisions in these two cases may have for charitable foundations and nonprofits.

The memorandum sets forth three potential outcomes in the SFFA cases and walks through the implications of each for the diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts in which charitable foundations and nonprofits presently engage.

The MTO team who authored the memorandum included Don Verrilli, Ginger Anders and April Hu.
Read the memorandum.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
MTO Prepares Memorandum for Charitable Foundations and Nonprofits Addressing the Potential Consequences of the Supreme Court's Upcoming Decisions on Considering Race in College Admissions

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In anticipation of the Supreme Court's upcoming decisions in Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President & Fellows of Harvard College and Students for Fair Admissions v. University of North Carolina, Munger, Tolles & Olson was approached by the Hewlett Foundation to prepare a memorandum preliminarily addressing what implications, if any, the Supreme Court's decisions in these two cases may have for charitable foundations and nonprofits.

# data[].attributes.headline
OpEd: I'm an Asian American Harvard grad. Affirmative action helped me

# data[].attributes.subject
OpEd: I'm an Asian American Harvard grad. Affirmative action helped me

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
(Charles Krupa / Associated Press)

The Supreme Court will begin hearing arguments in two cases at the end of the month and could decide the fate of affirmative action in higher education. In 2018, I testified before a federal judge in one of those cases, Students for Fair Admission vs. Harvard, attesting to the importance of affirmative action in my life and why it is valuable to the Asian American community.

I am the daughter of working-class Chinese immigrants who speak very little English. I was born at Chinese Hospital and grew up in Lower Nob Hill in San Francisco. My parents worked at restaurants for low wages, and our family of six barely scraped by. We lived in a cramped one-bedroom apartment among urban professionals and underserved communities.

Before I was even a teenager, I advocated and translated for my family. In my household, my siblings and I are the first generation to graduate from college. In my personal statement for my college application to Harvard, I wrote about how these experiences shaped my passion to do work that would help others with similar struggles.

I began at Harvard in 2015. During my first year, I was miserable and homesick, but I eventually found an academic home in my ethnic studies classes and a broader sense of belonging through campus organizing related to racial justice. At a student activism meeting in 2017, a friend shared how to file requests under the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act to see my admissions file. Curiosity and a lingering impostor syndrome led me to test out the process.

The registrar's office gave me 45 minutes to view my file. My admissions readers saw value and authenticity in my perspective: "Categorized as low-income and with Taiwanese-speaking parents, she relates to the plight of the outsidersin Ralph Ellison and William Faulkner." Though my test scores were far from perfect, they believed that I had the potential to make a "contribution to college life" that would be "truly unusual."

I benefited from an admissions process that took race and the effects of racism into consideration. My story can't be conveyed in a race-blind way and during the Harvard trial my admissions file was used as an exhibit to illustrate this. The benefits of affirmative action carried over into my classroom experience as well, where I had the chance to learn from classmates who came from very different backgrounds than my own.

After graduation, I packed my bags and moved back home to that one-bedroom apartment, determined to get to work. By day I worked in multiracial coalitions for policies that could help immigrant working families, such as investment in workforce training for communities of color. At night I continued to navigate complicated systems and programs as a client, applying for affordable housing through Asian American nonprofits and taking my parents to Chinatown outreach sites for COVID-19 vaccines. Doing this work - for myself and for others - gives me hope that someday everyone can share the belief that a more fair and inclusive society is a better one.

The injustices I grew up witnessing and experiencing still permeate our lives. The Supreme Court shouldn't end affirmative action. The U.S. needs more such programs and policies that address the inequities that people face in this country.

Some people point to Asian Americans, the "model minority," being well represented at elite universities as a reason race-conscious policies aren't necessary in higher education. The plaintiffs in one of the Supreme Court cases accuse Harvard of discriminating against Asian American applicants even though at the lower courts, no evidence of this was found. I am just one of many Asian American students and alumni who believe the university's race-conscious policies helped our admission and made our education better.

Asian Americans need and benefit from affirmative action. Almost 70% of Asian American voters support affirmative action. And in states such as California, where the program has been banned since 1996, universities have struggled to increase diversity without it.

Affirmative action is successful because it opens doors for people who would otherwise be excluded - and because it recognizes that everyone benefits from having diverse perspectives at the table. The program is an acknowledgment that our education system isn't fair, and laws that help remedy its inequities are necessary. If the Supreme Court ends affirmative action, as many predict, I'll be among its last beneficiaries. And I'll continue working to help those like me, who deserve access to the opportunities a great education can provide, and who will pay that benefit forward when they get it.
Sally Chen is the education equity program manager at Chinese for Affirmative Action, where she helps create opportunities and access for low-income Chinese immigrants at all levels of education.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Op-Ed: I'm an Asian American Harvard grad. Affirmative action helped me

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
If the Supreme Court ends the program, first-generation students like me will continue to face inequities when it comes to higher education.

# data[].attributes.body
CAA, Asian American Futures, Xin Sheng Project

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
FINAL: Affirmative Action Messaging Guide

# data[].attributes.headline
CAA's Open Letter to Colleges and Universities

# data[].attributes.subject
CAA's Open Letter to Colleges and Universities

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Open Letter to Presidents and Trustees of Colleges and Universities in the U.S.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The following is a statement by funders and philanthropic organizations in response to the U.S. Supreme Court's rulings in Students for Fair Admissions v. University of North Carolina and Students for Fair Admissions v. President and Fellows of Harvard College. A full list of signatories follows.

The Supreme Court's decision impedes colleges and universities from selecting their own student bodies and fully addressing systemic racial inequalities that persist. The ruling threatens to return this nation to a time when education and opportunity are reserved for a privileged class. It endangers 60 years of multiracial movements to challenge our nation to live up to the ideals enshrined in our founding documents. The decision erects new barriers to building a society in which everyone has the opportunity to improve their lives, communities, health, and education.

Today's ruling will make the vital work of building inclusive college campuses much harder. Experience has shown that substituting socioeconomic status as a proxy for race will not achieve the diversity that strengthens the fabric of all universities. Educators and communities dedicated to teaching and mentoring young people and adults from every imaginable background understand how all students - not just students of color - benefit from diverse racial and socioeconomic learning environments. Decades of research show that students educated with people from different backgrounds and experiences improve their analytical thinking, creativity, communication, and collaboration. These skills are essential to building our future workforce, our military, and a healthy democracy. In the realm of health, research shows that racially and ethnically representative medical schools produce better-trained physicians and care teams that reflect the communities they serve.

Universities and colleges and those organizations supporting them deserve the resources and support to continue their critical mission. They need our resolve, too. Philanthropies are vital partners in our nation's progress. We will remain steadfast in our collective mission to create a more equitable nation within the bounds of the law. To forge ahead, we must continue to advocate for the human dignity of all people - regardless of their race, gender, ethnicity, religion, or country of origin - with renewed vigor and commitment.

Our nation's future prosperity, vitality, and unity depend upon America becoming a true multiracial democracy - an aspiration that requires racial equity and diversity in higher education. Despite today's ruling, our foundations will not waver in our commitment to those making the nation's high ideals a reality for all communities and all people.

Signatories of this statement:
(as of July 13, 2023)

ABFE Lumina Foundation
ACCESS Health International
AJL Foundation
Akonadi Foundation
Alliance Healthcare Foundation
Archstone Foundation
Asset Funders Network
Barr Foundation
Blue Shield of California Foundation
Borealis Philanthropy
Brooklyn Community Foundation
Builders Vision
California Health Care Foundation
Center for Effective Philanthropy
Charles and Lynn Schusterman Family Philanthropies
Charles F. Kettering Foundation
Charles Stewart Mott Foundation
Ciencia Puerto Rico
CoGenerate
College Success Foundation
Community Foundation for Greater Atlanta
Community Foundation of Eastern Connecticut
Community Foundation of Northeast Iowa
Community Foundation of Western Massachusetts
Council of Michigan Foundations
Council on Foundations
David and Lucile Packard Foundation
David Rockefeller Fund
Democracy Fund
Digital Promise
Digital Promise
Disability & Philanthropy Forum
Diversity Works
East Bay Community Foundation
ECMC Foundation
Edward Hazen Foundation
Elmina B. Sewall Foundation
Environmental Grantmakers Association
Evelyn and Walter Haas, Jr. Fund
Fairfield County's Community Foundation
Fenton Communications
Ford Foundation
Foundation for a Just Society
Foundation for Health Equity
Funders Concerned About AIDS
Funders Together to End Homelessness
Grand Traverse Regional Community Foundation
Grantmakers for Education
Grantmakers for Effective Organizations
Grantmakers for Girls of Color
Grantmakers for Thriving Youth
Grantmakers for Thriving Youth
Grantmakers In Health
Grantmakers in the Arts
Great MN Schools
Greater Milwaukee Foundation
Hawaii Community Foundation
Hawaii Community Foundation
Health Forward Foundation
Healthy Communities Foundation
Heising-Simons Foundation
Hirsch Philanthropy Partners
Hispanics in Philanthropy
Hogg Foundation for Mental Health
Horizon Foundation
Humanity United
IGNITE
Imaginable Futures
Independence Public Media Foundation
Independence Public Media Foundation
Independent Sector
Jerome Foundation
John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation
John Rex Endowment
Josiah Macy Jr. Foundation
Kate B. Reynolds Charitable Trust
Kenneth Rainin Foundation
Lambent Foundation
Levi Strauss Foundation
Lewis Latimer House Museum
López-Wagner Strategies

Mary Reynolds Babcock Foundation
Mat-Su Health Foundation
McKnight Foundation
Mellon Foundation
Memphis Music Initiative
Mertz Gilmore Foundation
MetroWest Health Foundation
Meyer Memorial Trust
Ms. Foundation for Women
National Performance Network
New Breath Foundation
New York Foundation
Next Generation Learning Challenges
NH Endowment for Health
North Star Fund
Northwest Area Foundation
Omidyar Network
Point32Health Foundation
Raikes Foundation
REDF
Robert Sterling Clark Foundation
Robert Wood Johnson Foundation
Rockefeller Brothers Fund
Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors
Rodel
Rosenberg Foundation
RRJ Foundation for Aging
Ruth Mott Foundation
Rx Foundation
San Diego Foundation
San Diego Foundation
San Francisco Foundation
Scherman Foundation
SchoolHouse Connection
Schott Foundation for Public Education
Schultz Family Foundation
SCP
Sierra Health Foundation
Silicon Valley Community Foundation
Smith & Connors
SoCal Grantmakers
Spencer Foundation
Spitfire Strategies
Stuart Foundation
Stupski Foundation
Surdna Foundation
TBG Fund Development & Media Consultants
The Boston Foundation
The California Endowment
The California Wellness Foundation
The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching
The Commonwealth Fund
The Communications Network
The Denver Foundation
The FrameWorks Institute
The Funders Network
The George Gund Foundation
The James Irvine Foundation
The Joyce Foundation
The Klarman Family Foundation
The Kresge Foundation
The Libra Foundation
The Miami Foundation
The National Association of Chronic Disease Directors
The Nellie Mae Education Foundation
The NUNA Foundation
The Open Society Foundations
The Praxis Project
The Rippel Foundation
The Rockefeller Foundation
The Schmidt Family Foundation
The Skillman Foundation
The Spencer Foundation
The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation
Threespot
Tides
Triangle Community Foundation
United Way of Rhode Island
UU Class Conversations
van Ameringen Foundation
Wail of a Tale Productions
Wellspring Philanthropic Fund
WES Mariam Assefa Fund
William Caspar Graustein Memorial Fund
Williams Group

The Ford Foundation

The Ford Foundation is an independent organization working to address inequality and build a future grounded in justice. For more than 85 years, it has supported visionaries on the frontlines of social change worldwide, guided by its mission to strengthen democratic values, reduce poverty and injustice, promote international cooperation, and advance human achievement. Today, with an endowment of $16 billion, the foundation has headquarters in New York and 10 regional offices across Africa, Asia, Latin America, and the Middle East.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Statement in response to the US Supreme Court's Decision in Students for Fair Admissions v. University of North Carolina and Students for Fair Admissions v. President and Fellows of Harvard College - Ford Foundation

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Foundations speak out against Supreme Court ruling on affirmative action

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
"According to (the plaintiff) Students For Fair Admissions' expert, over 80% of all black applicants in the top academic decile were admitted to UNC, while under 70% of white and Asian applicants in that decile were admitted. In the second decile, the disparity is even starker: 83% of black applicants were admitted, while 58% of white applicants and 47% of Asian applicants were admitted. And in the third highest decile, 77% of black applicants were admitted, compared to 48% of white applicants and 34% of Asian applicants."
As Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson responded persuasively, his is a conclusion unsupported by the facts: "Even while the majority's ad hoc statistical analysis is taken at face value, it hardly supports what the majority wishes to intimate: that Black students are being admitted based on UNC's myopic focus on 'race - and race alone.'"

In making its decision, the Roberts Court overturned more than four decades of settled law beginning with the 1978 Regents of University of California v. Bakke decision and later confirmed in the 2003 University of Michigan Grutter v. Bollinger decision. In writing for the majority in Grutter, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor endorsed Justice Lewis Powell's view from Bakke that "student body diversity is a compelling state interest in the context of university admissions." Thus, the Grutter ruling held that colleges and universities could continue to use affirmative action to achieve diversity, provided the methods of doing so were "narrowly tailored." Additionally, in very helpful prose, Justice O'Connor made clear that "narrow tailoring does not require exhaustion of every conceivable race-neutral alternative."

In other words, race, and, by extension one's racial experiences, may be used as one of several factors to assess an admission's candidate's application, provided it is not the sole or defining factor.

The Justices in the 2003 Grutter case also based their ruling on research demonstrating that diversity is essential to learning and intellectual development. The Court did not rule -- or even consider -- that its decision was to correct centuries-old wrongs or harms, as the perpetually aggrieved Justice Clarence Thomas has wrongly insisted for many decades but rather that diversity in a university setting is essential to good educational outcomes. It found that a diverse learning environment contributes positively to the educational experiences of the entire student population, which, in turn, benefits the nation.

Yet, the debate about the educational benefits of diversity, in its preoccupation with the trees, misses the very important forest-namely, that ensuring diversity constitutes a moral imperative that goes far beyond the benefits to students on campus. Affirmative action's compelling social function is, as Justice O'Connor reminded us in Grutter, that it contributes positively to educating and training future generations of America's ethnic and racial leaders. We are looking to make sure we can have future Colin Powell's," said a signer of one of the military amicus curiae briefs filed on behalf of the University of Michigan. Analyzed from another perspective, it is impossible to imagine what America would be like today if those who benefited from affirmative action completely disappeared from the leadership positions they now occupy in government, business, the arts, education and the Supreme Court itself.

Justice Roberts seems to at least acknowledge these benefits in his curious and jaw-dropping statement that the ruling should be seen as exempting the United States military academies from the Court's decision because the military must maintain affirmative action "in light of the potentially distinct interests that military academies may present" in order to ensure that its leadership reflect the diversity of its troops.

This carve-out for military academies exposes the appalling hypocrisy and cynicism embedded in the Court's decision because, surely, if America needs to continue to change-so that its workforce and policies both reflect and support the growing diversity of this nation-then the color and gender of all of its leadership also will need to continue to change -- not only in the military, but in all sectors, including commerce, business, civil society, academic institutions and every other walk of professional life that contributes to the public good.

But, of course, this outcome is precisely the terrifying threat that affirmative action represents to its opponents, but one that they dare not express.

As Justice Brown Jackson writes:
"The Court has come to rest on the bottom-line conclusion that racial diversity in higher education is only worth potentially preserving insofar as it might be needed to prepare Black Americans and the other underrepresented minorities for success in the bunker, not the boardroom (a particularly awkward place to land, in light of the history the majority opts to ignore.) It would be deeply unfortunate if the Equal Protection Clause actually demanded this perverse, ahistorical and counterproductive outcome. To impose this result in that Clause's name when it requires no such thing, and to thereby obstruct our collective progress toward the full realization of the Clause's promise, is truly a tragedy for us all."
As a reminder, the purpose of the 14 Amendment to the Constitution, which was adopted after the Civil War on July 9, 1868, as one of the so-called Reconstruction Amendments, had several Clauses. However, the most urgent and consequential Clause was to restore full citizenship to formerly enslaved Americans. It sought to transform the United States from a country that was, as President Abraham Lincoln described, "half slave and half free,"to one in which the constitutionally guaranteed "blessings of liberty" and "equal protection of the laws" would be given to former slaves and their descendants and perforce to other citizens as well.

With this history and purpose of the 14 Amendment in mind, it is that Jackson wrote that the Court's reliance on the equal protection clause to abolish race-conscious admission regimes is both "perverse" and "ahistorical." The majority, she adds, "blinks at both history and reality in ways too numerous to count."

The plaintiffs base their opposition to how Harvard and UNC use affirmative action in their admissions decisions on zero-sum thinking, which posits that if one wins, the other loses. But the undeniable and demonstrable truth is that creating a learning environment of excellence by means of diversity is not a zero-sum game. It is actually a game changer.

The benefits of creating excellence in a university setting and paving the way for the opportunity of diverse leadership in American life are why there was such deep, urgent and broad support from every corner of America for the University of Michigan's use of race as a single factor among all other factors considered in its admissions process. Corporate America and the military, which used their considerable weight and influence, were among the university's strongest supporters because they understood that creating an environment of educational diversity is not a zero-sum game, but rather a tide that lifts all boats.

The best education prepares students to be fit company not merely for themselves, but for others as well. Our nation is still in want of students awakened to the powerful lessons of human history; of enlightened managers trained to shape and give order to human experience; of teachers ready and equipped to educate our nation's youth and of legal minds prepared to secure a free and just society.

The different points of view that emerge from diverse cultural heritages and ethnic backgrounds enlarge our aesthetic horizons, enrich our intellectual discourse, sharpen our historical perspective and give increased focus to who we are and what we stand for as a nation. In the Michigan Grutter case, the Court both acknowledged that these important ends are best met within a context of learning that is multi-dimensionally diverse and also affirmed that selective private and public universities have an obligation to ensure that "the path to leadership [is] open to talented and qualified individuals of every race and ethnicity."

It has been widely reported that the percentage of Black undergraduates has dropped at public universities in states that previously banned race-conscious admission policies. At the University of Michigan, the Black undergraduate enrollment decreased from 7% in 2006 to 4% in 2021. After California's passage of Proposition 209 in 1996, which prohibited the University of California and other state entities from using race, ethnicity or sex as criteria in public employment, public contracting and public education, the University system saw a similarly significant drop in Black undergraduate enrollment. Black enrollment at University of California, Los Angeles, for instance, declined by 50% in the following two years. In the amicus brief filed by three highly regarded liberal arts colleges - Amherst, Wesleyan, and Williams - they predicted that the percentage of admitted Black students at their institutions would fall by roughly 5%.

Clearly, the Court's ruling will further deteriorate the matriculation of many of our Black and Latino students to our colleges and universities and thus, in turn, reduce the pipeline of these students for leadership positions in America.

In 1984, I was asked to join the Harvard Faculty Standing Committee on College Admissions. In my two years on the Committee, I was asked to read and comment on the applications of prospective students who had indicated an interest in the humanities. I was impressed then by Harvard's comprehensive and highly individualized process as I continue to be impressed now, especially in the face of the Court's misunderstanding of it.

Harvard's amicus curiae brief on behalf of the respondents in the 2003 University of Michigan's case summarized the process well:
"At Harvard College every application is read individually by at least one admissions officer and often two or more. All applicants are further considered, and any who are serious contenders for admission are discussed by a multi-member admissions subcommittee. Candidates are reviewed and discussed yet again by the entire admissions committee, consisting of approximately 30 members, often supplemented by faculty members in relevant departments. All this review and discussion is necessary precisely because the admissions process seeks to form a class that is diverse along multiple dimensions, of which race is but one-a class that is more than the sum of its individual student parts."
At Harvard, this is not, nor has it ever been, a simple "check the box" process, but rather one that includes scrupulous attention to the "whole student," as opposed to a single aspect of the student and certainly not exclusively to race.

Justice Roberts writes that both UNC and Harvard "involve racial stereotyping" in their admission programs and that both universities admit Black and Latino applicants over white and Asian applicants in the name of diversity. But in doing so, the Court casts a very wide and hurtful net that stereotypes Asian-American applicants as monolithically homogenous, as opposed to the enormously diverse ethnic group that they are.

Indeed, UNC, Harvard and other enlightened higher education institutions race-conscious admissions policies extend not only to Black and Latino Americans, but also to Asian-American communities, which have been growing ever more nuanced and complex in the variety of ethnicities they comprise. Overall, Asian Americans-including those of Indian, Chinese, Filipino, Japanese and Korean heritage-account for higher than average percentages of both high school and college graduates, but members of more recent Asian immigrant groups-Cambodians, Thai and Laotians, for instance-have profiles more closely resembling those of African Americans and Latinos.

It is appalling that the Court, following the misguided lead of the plaintiff Student For Fair Admissions (SFFA), would stoop so low as to reduce the issue before the Court as a Black and Latino versus an Asian and White one.

Moreover, the insidious zero-game thinking embedded in SFFA's complaint and the Court's decision that admissions affirmative action policies have led to Black applicants taking the seats that would have otherwise been filled by White and Asians is preposterous and not supported by the enrollment percentages:

At Harvard, the self-identified enrolled undergraduate student population is 46% White, 21.9.% is Asian, 14.3% is multiracial, 10.7% is Black or African American, and 6.5% is Hispanic or Latino. (2022)

At UNC, the enrolled undergraduate student population is 65% White, 22% is Asian or Asian American, 10% is Hispanic or Latino, 10% is Black and African American, and 1% is American Indian or Alaskan Native.

In both instances, Black students represent a significantly smaller percentage of enrolled undergraduate students than White and Asian students. Put another way, if Asian students are losing enrollment spots to other students, it is to White students - not Black students, unless one accepts the Court's underlying racial stereotyping that most or all Asian applicants are significantly more academically talented than most or all Black students admitted and therefore, should be represented in even greater percentages than they already are.

Admission programs acting affirmatively are often described by its opponents as admitting under-achieving applicants that would not otherwise be admitted. However, it would be wrong to believe that the admission practices and policies at UNC or Harvard University are to admit otherwise unqualified Black and Latino students in place of more qualified White and Asian-American students. Admitted students enter these institutions within a broad range of similar abilities and aptitudes in their diverse fields of inquiry and interests. However, these institutions are seeking to close persistent racial and socio-economic opportunities gaps for individual students - Black, Latino, White and Asian Americans alike- as part of their mission to strengthen, not weaken, our democracy.

President Lyndon Baines Johnson, in his remarkable June 1965 Howard University Commencement Address, To Fulfill These Rights, delivered a month before the 1964 passage of the Civil Rights Bills, said:

"You do not take a person who, for years, has been hobbled by chains and liberate him, bring him up to the starting line of a race and then say, 'You are free to compete with all the others,' and still justly believe that you have been completely fair... We seek not just freedom but opportunity... it is not enough just to open the gates of opportunity. All our citizens must have the ability to walk through those gates."

In Justice Thomas' opinion, he summons up the craw lodged in his throat for decades when he criticizes Justice Brown Jackson because "as she sees things, we are all inexorably trapped in a fundamentally racist society, with the original sin of slavery and the historical subjugation of black Americans still determining our lives today..."

But there is nothing in Grutter or in Justice Brown's opinion that suggests that UNC or Harvard, through their admissions practices, seeks to repair the harms of slavery, as evil as they were, inflicted on Black Americans.

However, there are serious structural disparities and daily stresses - economic, social, physical and mental - that underserved and communities of color endure each and every day that puts life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness further out of their reach.

For instance, according the 2023 Health of Boston Report, residents of the Back Bay neighborhood of Boston -- an overwhelmingly wealthy neighborhood -- have a life expectancy of 92 years, while the average lifespan in Roxbury, a predominately Black, Afro-Latinx and Latinx neighborhood just two miles away, is 69 years.

For years, federal, state and municipal discriminatory housing and zoning practices, including redlining graded neighborhoods on potential mortgage lending risks that, in turn, led to predatory lending practices as well as covenants that barred specific races other than the Caucasian race from owning, occupying, renting, selling or inheriting buildings in specific were tied explicitly to race and discriminatory on their face.

In 1944, the GI Bill lifted a generation into the middle class. It was then the greatest expansion of the middle class in American history. It gave free college and cheap home loans to millions of veterans. However, the United States was still very much segregated when the GI Bill became law, meaning that it excluded Black vets who served their country at war and came home to segregation.

These and many more such instances left behind wreckage from which many neighborhoods and families - even more than half a century later - have not yet fully recovered. And none of them are rooted in Justice Thomas "slavery's original sin."

These are contemporaneous inequities that have contemporaneous social and economic consequences that impact families and individuals now and into the future. Because they are structural and have persisted over so many years, they impose barriers to the opportunities that other American's enjoy in full measure - opportunities that make it nearly impossible for them to overcome without aid and assistance.

Moreover - and this is most important - none of the unjust racial disparities that we see today happened by accident; they are built into the very fabric and structure of American life.

Since the recent Supreme Court issued its ruling, many have wondered whether its reliance on the Constitutional equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment and Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act -- which prohibits discrimination on the ground of race, color of national origin under any program receiving federal funding -- will embolden state agencies and other plaintiffs with standing to challenge diversity programs in areas outside of higher education admission policies.

On the same day, shortly after the Court issue its decision, the Missouri Attorney General's office announced that all Missouri colleges and universities - both public and private -- must end the practice of making diversity scholarships available to its students.

And there is potential for more challenges going forward:

Will the ruling lead to many more so-called "reverse racism" suits?

Will employers be deterred or even prohibited from participating in DEI (Diversity Equity and Inclusion) programs that provide race-conscious preferences in recruitment, hiring, retention or promotion?

Will corporate boards withdraw support for their ESG (Environment, Sustainability, Governance) objectives because they include efforts to increase diversity in corporate practices?

Will charitable foundations that receive federal funding be prohibited from making contracts or grants that advance DEI initiatives.

Will in-house corporate or nonprofit affinity groups disappear?
While it is difficult to know the full extent of the fallout of the Court's decision as it impacts corporations and nonprofits, it seems likely that it will indeed have a chilling effect, not only on other university diversity programs but in other areas as well. It would seem prudent for corporations and any organization receiving federal support to begin now - rather than later - to investigate preventative defense legal strategies.

Oddly, there is perhaps a glimmer of hope in Roberts' own head-scratching prose, where he asserts that "nothing in this opinion should be construed as prohibiting universities from considering an applicant's discussion of how race affected his or her life, be it through discrimination, inspiration or otherwise. But, despite the dissent's assertion to the contrary, universities may not simply establish through application essays or other means the regime we hold unlawful today."

What does this mean? How is it even possible to untangle one's race from the experiences that their race has imposed on them?

Race is not a concept merely, but an experience shaped, in large measure, by how you experience yourself, and how others experience you. Any attempts to detach race from the experience of race is naïve, futile and senseless.

However, there appears to be good news and many opportunities for those who support diversity, inclusion and belonging in university admissions, the workplace and other programs. Lawyers for Civil Rights, a Boston nonprofit that fights discrimination and fosters equity, along with others across the country, have been quick to find ways that academic institutions can continue to build the kind of well-rounded classes that our society needs and requires. As they point out:

The decision cannot be construed as an outright ban on race-conscious admissions. Key elements of the holistic assessment process for higher education institutions remain in place. The ruling also leaves open the door for colleges to use race-neutral alternatives to achieve diversity on campus, including:

Recruiting based on income and socioeconomic background;

Using criteria such as home and school zip codes;

Investing heavily in efforts to admit first-generation college students and to make them feel at home on campus; and

Guaranteeing admission to graduates with the best grade-point averages from each high school within the state where the college or university is located, as schools such as the University of Texas have already successfully implemented.

It is my sincere hope that these key elements will indeed survive strict scrutiny now and in the future.

There is also hope in the swift, bold and courageous outpouring of support from a multitude of organizations - both corporate and nonprofit - that, despite the Court's decision, have forcefully expressed their ongoing commitment to diversity, inclusion and belonging practices and policies.

At the Boston Foundation, we point out that the Court's decision striking down affirmative action in college admissions flies in the face of decades of history and ignores historical evidence that affirmative action has lessened the systemic inequity of opportunity in higher education. Moreover, it threatens future opportunities for leaders of color.

We promise to redouble our commitment as a foundation to our principal goal of advancing equity for all. We remain committed to closing the gaps in our region's greatest disparities. But to do so we must be honest about their very existence and the historical legacies that led to their creation. As Greater Boston's community foundation, we will continue to reflect and support the rich diversity of our city and region, promote policies and practices that tackle the individual, systemic and root-level causes of inequity, and be a bold voice to unapologetically face challenging issues.

This is our promise. We will not be denied.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Magic Kingdom: How the Supreme Court got it wrong in its landmark affirmative action ruling

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
"According to (the plaintiff) Students For Fair Admissions' expert, over 80% of all black applicants in the top academic decile were admitted to UNC, while under 70% of white and Asian applicants in that decile were admitted.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The U.S. Supreme Court decision limiting the use of race in college admissions may not be a total surprise, but it is still a slap of hard truth about the long road ahead for those who respect and understand the benefits of a more diverse and just postsecondary educational system.

It's hard not to see the larger picture leading us here-which includes the assault on fairness and racial diversity already embedded in decisions by nine states to ban the consideration of race in the admissions processes at highly selective institutions. Colleges that take race into consideration only use it as one data point in a holistic approach that includes test scores, grades, and interests outside the classroom. Given that, in the most charitable assessment, these cases before the Supreme Court and the laws elsewhere are an overreaction, a solution in search of a problem.

The larger picture includes the advance of anti-equity legislation that is passing or moving forward in areas across the country. Whether those laws are enforceable or not is not really the issue, as much as they reflect the real intent of placing a chilling effect on organizations pursuing equality in America.

The decision is wrong. Considering race in admissions promotes fairness in higher education and has helped all of us by preparing our students for a more diverse, multicultural society. Promoting racial equity in higher education also helps to redress disadvantage and barriers imposed upon people of color seeking a college education. We already had a rigorous legal standard for race-conscious admissions, which was settled law for over four decades. The court's decision will almost certainly provoke further legal cases to establish the boundaries for institutions in promoting diversity. That could further limit racial equity policies if institutions become overly cautious in the face of legal uncertainty.

This hurts everyone. Although this case is solely about admissions at highly selective colleges and universities, many other institutional leaders have been preparing for the potential ripple effects, which experience shows will reduce racial diversity on campuses. Even for schools that are not affected, the ruling sends the wrong message to students and the world about our national commitment to progress.

We're not stopping. This is a big step backward in a long journey toward a more fair society. We all know that racial equity is just as important today as it has ever been. Now more than ever, we need to redouble our efforts to achieve this goal. That means talking about the strategies we should be pursuing, the things we should do-and the things we should protect against, going forward. This ruling could have far broader implications for higher education beyond admissions, and we need to know much more about those.

We also need to help others understand the facts around race and opportunity in education. Many people believe incorrectly that considering race in admissions means less qualified people are admitted or that there are quotas regarding who must be admitted. In fact, competitive admissions systems are not about giving advantages to less-qualified people. They're used to decide who, among equally qualified people, should be admitted.

Clearly, today's rulings show that we must do more to help people understand the benefits of racial diversity on college campuses-learning to work with people with different life experiences. We must focus our efforts to make the case-not only for fairness on campus, but for the critical role of higher education in society.

As major employers argued to the Court, "Acknowledging, supporting, and promoting the benefits of diversity-specifically including racial and ethnic diversity-among their workforces is essential to meet client needs, achieve business goals, and strengthen relationships both internally and with the communities [we] serve."

Lumina stands with its partners and colleagues across the field of higher education: We recognize that the words and tactics some use may have to change, but our collective commitment to improving fairness and justice in higher education certainly will not.

Many of us feel a sense of sadness and dismay. But as we talk with friends and partners, it is heartening to hear a solid sense of determination. Despite what has happened here and the obstacles this will throw in our path, we cannot be deterred.
Back to News

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Three things to remember about the Supreme Court's unjust decision on college admissions

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The U.S. Supreme Court decision limiting the use of race in college admissions may not be a total surprise, but it is still a slap of hard truth about the long road ahead for those who respect and understand the benefits of a more diverse and just postsecondary educational system.

# data[].attributes.headline
What Nonprofit and Foundation Leaders Are Saying About the Supreme Court’s Affirmative-Action Ruling

# data[].attributes.subject
What Nonprofit and Foundation Leaders Are Saying About the Supreme Court’s Affirmative-Action Ruling

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The Annie E. Casey Foundation is devoted to making sure that all children and youth in the United States - regardless of race, ethnicity or ZIP code - have a bright future. The Supreme Court's June 29 decision to restrict affirmative action in college admissions is a direct threat to that vision.

Data show that children and youth of color are a long way from having a fair shot at success, despite the incremental progress the nation has made over the years. As we stated two weeks ago in our , ​"The country's racial inequities remain deep, systemic and stubbornly persistent. Data suggest that our nation fails to provide American Indian, Black and Latino children with the opportunities and support they need to thrive - and to remove the obstacles they encounter disproportionately on the road to adulthood." This is similarly true for large numbers of Pacific Islander, Native Hawaiian and Southeast Asian children.

These challenges will not dissolve on their own, just as they didn't appear out of thin air. It will take concerted, consistent and targeted efforts over a long arc of time - such as the race-conscious admissions programs that were struck down - to remove the barriers that exist and promote greater equity and inclusion. In September, we will dive deeper into other strategies that have the potential for expanding opportunity for children of color when we release our third report.

Meanwhile, as long as the data tells us it is essential to do so, we will continue to keep equity at the center of our work. Together with our partners and grantees in the public, private and nonprofit sectors, we will push to make the United States a place where all children, youth and young adults have the family connections, relationships, communities and educational and employment opportunities necessary for their well-being and success.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Casey's Response to the Supreme Court's Affirmative Action Decision

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Supreme Court's restriction of affirmative action in college admissions reinforces longstanding racial inequities. Learn more.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
WKKF Statement on Affirmative Action Ruling - W.K. Kellogg Foundation %

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
U.S. Supreme Court in two affirmative action cases will make it more difficult to address barriers young people of color face on the path to college.

# data[].attributes.headline
What Affirmative Action decision could mean for DEI in Philanthropy

# data[].attributes.subject
What Affirmative Action decision could mean for DEI in Philanthropy

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What Affirmative Action Decision Could Mean for DEI in Philanthropy

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The recent Supreme Court affirmative action decision may have closed a chapter in American higher education but opened the door to a new set of questions about the constitutionality and viability of race-conscious efforts in academia and beyond.

# data[].attributes.headline
The Board's role in adopting and overseeing race-conscious activities and how Counsel can help

# data[].attributes.subject
The Board's role in adopting and overseeing race-conscious activities and how Counsel can help

# data[].attributes.headline
Resources for Philanthropy to seek guidance on grantmaking implications

# data[].attributes.subject
Resources for Philanthropy to seek guidance on grantmaking implications

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Will the Supreme Court end affirmative action in June? It seems likely, and the legal consequences may ripple beyond college admissions to other sectors, including philanthropy and the wider charitable sector.

As you may know, the Court heard two cases - Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA) v. Harvard and SFFA v. University of North Carolina (UNC) in October 2022. These cases raised the question of whether the promotion of diversity remains a compelling interest for higher education institutions and, if so, whether a race-conscious admissions program can help achieve that broader interest. Since oral arguments, higher education officials and legal experts have widely discussed the potential ramifications of a ruling prohibiting or even restricting the use of race-conscious admissions program. However, the potential effects outside of the academic arena - including philanthropy and the nonprofit sector, more generally - have not been as widely considered.

Over the past few years, many foundations have increased their commitments to promoting diversity, equity, and inclusion through scholarship programs, leadership development opportunities, and broader grantmaking. Like many of our members, the Council is committed to advancing diversity, equity, and inclusion and supporting our members to expand these investments and commitments.

We don't yet know whether these important programs will be impacted by the court's decision, but the Council will continue to be a resource as foundations navigate the potential legal complexities post-decision. In the meantime, the Council's legal team is continuing to connect with philanthropic partners, legal experts, and other stakeholders to better understand the potential immediate and long-term impact for foundations and the nonprofit sector, as well as possible paths forward.

We also know many of you are thinking about the implications for your grantmaking and other critical programs. As we await the decision, here's what can you do now:

1. Share the questions and concerns you are wrestling with using the form below, so our team can work to address them in resources we develop post-decision.

2. Join our pop-up conversation at the Council's Leading Locally conference in Denver: June 13 at 10:45am (MT).

3. Get counsel from someone on our team or give us your suggestions for resources by contacting us at legal@cof.org.

4. Stay tuned for a post-decision Council webinar with legal experts and additional resources.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Could the Supreme Court's Decision on Affirmative Action Affect Philanthropy?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Will the Supreme Court end affirmative action in June? It seems likely, and the legal consequences may ripple beyond college admissions to other sectors, including philanthropy and the wider charitable sector.

# data[].attributes.headline
Implications, Risks and Strategies for the Charitable Sector: Nonprofits + Grantmakers 

# data[].attributes.subject
Implications, Risks and Strategies for the Charitable Sector: Nonprofits + Grantmakers 

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Ban on Affirmative Action: Implications, Risks, and Strategies for the Charitable Sector | Davis Wright Tremaine

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
How could the Supreme Court ruling on college admissions extend past education to impact nonprofits&apos; race-based prog

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
By Anthony P. Carnevale
Today's US Supreme Court decision to sharply curtail the consideration of applicants' race/ethnicity in the college admissions process shines a spotlight, once again, on an uncomfortable truth: racism is alive and well in America. The ugly interpersonal dimensions of racism in our country have become increasingly apparent in recent years, made plain in our political discourse and in devastating acts of violence. As the consequences of the Supreme Court's decision begin to unfold in shifting enrollments across the postsecondary system, the depth of institutionalized racism will become more evident as well.

Confronting our nation's long history of subjugation, repression, and cruelty is imperative if we are to ensure that the United States lives up to its promise of providing equal opportunity to all. Instead, the Supreme Court has erected new barriers to practices that were initially intended to right the injustices of the past, risking a return to pre-Civil Rights Era segregation in our selective colleges and universities. Previous Supreme Court justices, uncomfortable with admitting to the existence of systemic racial bias, shifted the legal justification for affirmative action from societal justice to the educational benefits of diversity. This latest decision severs the thread between selective postsecondary admissions and reparative justice altogether. Meanwhile, systematic inequality grounded in racial and socioeconomic segregation persists within the education system and beyond it.

Our education system is rigged to benefit those who already have race and class privilege, and to disadvantage those who don't. A kindergartner with top-half test scores and a family in the bottom quartile of socioeconomic status (SES) has a 31 percent chance of being in the top half of SES as a young adult. Meanwhile, a kindergartner with bottom-half test scores and a family in the top quartile of SES has a 71 percent chance of being in the top half of SES as a young adult. These differences are similarly visible along racial/ethnic lines: a white kindergartner with bottom-half test scores has a 60 percent chance of being in the top half of SES as a young adult, while a Black/African American kindergartner with top-half test scores has a 45 percent chance being in the top half of SES as a young adult.

The postsecondary system can play a big part in advancing inequality, as a college degree has become increasingly essential to economic opportunity. Today, college is the most certain pathway to the middle class: by 2031, 72 percent of all jobs in the country will go to workers with at least some college education, as will 85 percent of good jobs (those paying a minimum of $38,000 per year for young workers and a median of $72,000 for all workers nationwide). Selective colleges in particular are an avenue to success - offering higher graduation rates than the rest of the postsecondary system, direct connections to top jobs, and throughways to positions of political influence. But these colleges are closed off to most: not only are they exceedingly difficult to get into, they are also prohibitively expensive.

The court's decision will cement the status quo, making it all the more difficult for selective colleges to serve as engines of opportunity for students from all racial/ethnic backgrounds. While essays arguing that an applicant's racial/ethnic identity contributed to their character may still be permitted, the onus of proving the personal impacts of systemic racism will be placed on the shoulders of individual students, while students with privilege will continue to silently benefit from their advantages. Wealthy and white students will continue to have the upper hand in a system that was built to benefit them. We want our colleges and universities to reward merit, but we already know that their version of merit is a myth: for example, if colleges admitted students solely based on admissions test scores, more than half of students currently enrolled in selective colleges, including 46 percent of white students, would be displaced.

Many colleges will look for ways to achieve racial/ethnic diversity without considering race, but they are not likely to be successful. Some argue that consideration of socioeconomic status is a fairer way of redressing disadvantage than consideration of race, and that class-conscious admissions will lead to improved levels of racial diversity in the most selective US colleges and universities. But our analysis has demonstrated that class is not, in fact, an equal substitute for race in selective admissions, and the court's decision suggests that proxies for race will be subject to legal challenges.

In the short term, the most viable options for selective colleges hoping to maintain existing levels of diversity include expanding the applicant pool to include a much broader population of prospective students; ending admissions preferences for legacies, the children of donors, and athletes; and significantly expanding financial aid to make college more affordable for disadvantaged students. The logic of the decision would dictate that preferences for legacies, the children of donors, and athletes should end: if we as a country wish to do away with preferences based on race or ethnicity, it is only fair that we do away with all preferences, including those benefiting the well-connected. Unfortunately, none of these possible solutions is particularly likely to be adopted system-wide.

If we cannot rely on the college admissions process to create more equitable access for historically underrepresented students, the focus must shift to the K-12 system - where some may say it should have been all along. At the state level, many educational justice advocates have prevailed in the courts, affirming their state constitutions' promises to provide all students with an education that is adequate to prepare them for successful adulthood. In the wake of the Supreme Court's decision, these efforts will become the front line in the ongoing legal battle for educational opportunity.

The promise of America lies in the ideal that we are all inherently equal, deserving of the same opportunities regardless of our race, ethnicity, gender, socioeconomic background, or geographic location. We look to our education system to fulfill that promise by rewarding hard work and talent. But in doing so, we expect fairness from a system that has never been fair. Today, the US Supreme Court has enshrined the system's shortcomings by solidifying advantage for those who already have it.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Supreme Court's Decision on Race-Conscious Admissions Cements Racial Inequality in America

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Today's US Supreme Court decision to sharply curtail the consideration of applicants' race/ethnicity in the college admissions process shines a spotlight, once again, on an uncomfortable truth...

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Curtailing Affirmative Action Is a Blow Against a Rising Generation

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The gap between a more diverse America and less diverse elite colleges will only grow.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
'Race neutral' replaces affirmative action. What's next? | CNN Politics

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
When the Supreme Court cut affirmative action out of college admissions programs Thursday, it did not outlaw the goal of achieving diversity, but it set a new "race-neutral" standard for considering applicants.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The end of race-conscious admissions | Brookings

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
States and universities that hope to achieve the same racial diversity as they have under race-based affirmative action will need to pursue alternate policies to reach those goals.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Education's Impending Racial Crisis

If the Supreme Court bans race-conscious affirmative action, as expected, selective higher education institutions almost certainly will become less diverse, reducing the rates of degree attainment among students from historically underrepresented racial/ethnic groups. Race, Elite College Admissions, and the Courts: The Pursuit of Racial Equality in Education Retreats to K-12 Schools explores the legal history of racial equity in education, evaluates alternatives to using race/ethnicity in college admissions, and considers changes to the K-12 education system that would improve educational opportunity. In the long term, the only way to ensure diversity at selective higher education institutions is to confront the segregation and inequity in K-12 education and society at large.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Race, Elite College Admissions, and the Courts: The Pursuit of Racial Equality in Education Retreats to K-12 Schools - CEW Georgetown

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Race, Elite College Admissions, and the Courts: The Pursuit of Racial Equality in Education Retreats to K-12 Schools explores the legal history of racial equity in education, evaluates alternatives to using race/ethnicity in college admissions, and considers changes to the K-12 education system that would improve educational opportunity.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Today, following the Biden-Harris Administration's commitment to advance diversity and opportunity in higher education, the U.S. Department of Education's (ED) Office for Civil Rights and the U.S. Department of Justice's Civil Rights Division are jointly releasing two resources to help colleges and universities understand the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College and Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. University of North Carolina et al. (collectively " SFFA"). These resources will help colleges and universities as they work to lawfully pursue efforts to achieve a student body that is diverse across a range of factors, including race and ethnicity.

"For higher education to be an engine for equal opportunity, upward mobility, and global competitiveness, we need campus communities that reflect the beautiful diversity of our country," said U.S. Secretary of Education Miguel Cardona. "The resources issued by the Biden-Harris Administration today will provide college leaders with much-needed clarity on how they can lawfully promote and support diversity, and expand access to educational opportunity for all following the Supreme Court's disappointing ruling on affirmative action. This is only the first step and our Administration will continue to work to ensure we prepare students of all backgrounds and income levels to lead our multiracial democracy together."

"Ensuring access to higher education for students from different backgrounds is one of the most powerful tools we have to prepare graduates to lead an increasingly diverse nation and make real our country's promise of opportunity for all," said Attorney General Merrick B. Garland. "These resources provide universities with the information they need to determine what lawful tools remain available to them to promote diversity in higher education. The Justice Department remains committed to working with our partners across government to advance educational opportunity for all Americans, regardless of their background."

On June 29, 2023, the Supreme Court held in SFFA that the consideration of race in the admissions practices of the University of North Carolina and Harvard College violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, a law that prohibits discrimination based on race, color, or national origin in programs or activities receiving federal financial assistance, including those conducted by colleges and universities.

Following the Court's decision in SFFA, President Biden and Vice President Harris called on colleges, universities, and other stakeholders to seize the opportunity to expand access to educational opportunity for all students, and to build diverse student bodies, including by recognizing and valuing students who have overcome adversity. The Administration remains committed to advancing access to education for all Americans and to promoting diversity in higher education consistent with the law. The Administration has taken swift action to support our Nation's colleges and universities so they can continue building pathways to upward mobility and preparing students from all backgrounds to thrive in our workforce.

In light of the SFFA decision, the Departments today issued a Dear Colleague Letter and a Questions and Answers resource to help colleges and universities understand the Court's decision as they continue to pursue campuses that are racially diverse and that include students with a range of viewpoints, talents, backgrounds, and experiences.

"Even after the Court's decision sharply limited a tool that colleges and universities with selective admissions practices have used to create vibrant, diverse campus communities, colleges and universities may still lawfully work to admit, support, retain, and graduate racially diverse student bodies," said Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights at ED Catherine E. Lhamon. "Today's resources explain practices that remain legally viable and confirms the Federal government's robust civil rights protections in schools."

"Educational institutions must ensure that their admissions practices do not create barriers for students based on any protected characteristics, including race. We remain firmly committed to equitable educational opportunities for all students, and ensuring that students of color are not denied opportunities to participate in the robust exchange of ideas and experiences that are the keystone of college and university life," said Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights Kristen Clarke. "How an applicant's racial identity - as well as other aspects of their social identity - impact their development, goals, or educational interests remain important considerations in university admissions."

The Departments' Questions & Answers resource distills the Court's core holding and offers examples of steps colleges and universities can lawfully take to achieve a student body that is diverse across a range of factors, including race and ethnicity, such as: targeted outreach, recruitment, and pathway programs; evaluation of admission policies; and retention strategies and programs.

Last month, following the decision, ED hosted the National Summit on Equal Opportunity in Higher Education that brought together senior Biden-Harris Administration officials, student leaders, college and university administrators, and other stakeholders to discuss innovative strategies that enable colleges and universities to promote educational opportunity. In September, ED will produce a report elevating promising practices to build inclusive, diverse student bodies, including how colleges can give serious consideration to measures of adversity when selecting among qualified applicants. This includes accounting for the financial means of a student or their family; where a student grew up and went to high school; and personal experiences of hardship or discrimination, including racial discrimination, in their admissions process.

More information on the work the Biden-Harris Administration is doing to continue building success for all students to thrive can be found here.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Advance Diversity and Opportunity in Higher Education: Justice and Education Departments Release Resources to Advance Diversity and Opportunity in Higher Education | U.S. Department of Education

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Advance Diversity and Opportunity in Higher Education: Justice and Education Departments Release Resources to Advance Diversity and Opportunity in Higher Education

# data[].attributes.headline
Possible effects on bridge and summer programs at colleges

# data[].attributes.subject
Possible effects on bridge and summer programs at colleges

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
Inside Higher Ed | Higher Education News, Events and Jobs

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Rice University president Reginald DesRoches launched his career as a civil engineer-turned-higher ed administrator back in the early 1980s, when he joined a summer bridge program for students from underrepresented backgrounds before his freshman year at the University of California, Berkeley.

The program was made up of about 90 percent students of color, he said, and it helped him feel more at home in Berkeley's largely white engineering program. He even replicated it decades later with the Rice Emerging Scholars Program, which he said has a similar demographic makeup to the old Berkeley one.

"It gave me mentorship, it gave me a stronger basis in math and science, and it gave me a cohort of students who I felt comfortable studying with in a predominantly white institution," DesRoches said. "It made a huge difference."

Those initiatives, like many race-conscious efforts to boost equity and access in higher education, have come under increased scrutiny since the Supreme Court struck down affirmative action in admissions last month.

Many colleges, especially selective institutions, run summer scholar programs as a recruitment tool for underrepresented students, hoping to open up access to institutions that might otherwise seem out of reach and to make them feel at home on campus. Summer offerings like the one DesRoches attended, usually called bridge programs, are intended to prepare admitted students from underresourced high schools so they enter college on an even footing with their peers.

Art Coleman, managing partner and founder of EducationCounsel LLC, an education legal consulting firm, said he thinks most targeted recruitment efforts will be safe from the legal repercussions of the court's decision. But selective, scholarship-funded and application-based opportunities, including many summer programs, could be in danger.

"If you've got this very distinct line of experience or avenue for enrichment that is unique to a certain cohort, and racial status is part of the selection, I think that's vulnerable," he said.

Ann Franke, a former vice president of the United Educators insurance company who now runs her own education consulting firm, predicts that employment practices and scholarships are more likely than recruitment programs to face legal challenges. But for institutions seeking to practice caution, she recommends certain changes.

"If I were designing a program, I would look to see whether your race-conscious practice has a measurable goal other than a quota, and then I'd look really carefully at designing how participants are selected," Franke said. "Also, there was a focus in Justice Roberts's opinion on [affirmative action practices] not having a fixed end point, so I might establish a sunset date or a date for re-evaluation."

Kevin Kruger, president of the higher education student affairs administrators' association NASPA, said such programs have historically been an effective tool for boosting college access among underserved groups and could be an important way for selective institutions to increase diversity without relying on affirmative action in admissions.

"There are lots of invisible and unintentional barriers that exist for many of these young people from communities where they don't think of college as a possibility, so these programs really do create a pipeline for getting into college," he said. "My hope is that we don't eviscerate these programs out of the fear of running afoul of the decision, because they serve an important purpose."

Changing Language or Diluting Mission?

In the wake of the Supreme Court decision-and, to some extent, even in the years leading up to it, as race-based higher ed programs came under increased political scrutiny-summer programs for underrepresented groups have taken on vaguer, more inclusive language around eligibility.

Marymount University in Virginia, for instance, is marketing a new summer bridge program toward "underrepresented scholars" interested in STEM fields. Marymount engineering professor Eric Bubar, who will teach in the program, wrote in an email to Inside Higher Ed that the term could apply to "a variety of groups" and "does not exclude students from more highly represented demographics."

Utah Valley University's Latino Scientists of Tomorrow summer program is not actually strictly for Latino scientists. University spokesperson Scott Trotter wrote in an email to Inside Higher Ed that the program is "open to all students," and that while leaders recruit students from underrepresented groups, the application process "does not take race or ethnicity into account."

And the University of Chicago's Woodson Summer Scholars program, launched in 2019, is for "students who are engaged in Black/African American communities," according to the website. University spokesperson Gerald McSwiggan said the language did not change this year, but Chicago is reviewing the Supreme Court decision and "will comply with all applicable laws while continuing efforts to engage with applicants of high ability from all backgrounds in order to foster a diverse and welcoming environment."

But changes to language and focus are not always cosmetic. When California voters passed Proposition 209 in 1996, the University of California, Berkeley, had to rework many of its summer recruitment and enrichment programs for Black, Latino and other underrepresented students.

Sheila Humphreys began working at Berkeley in 1982 as the diversity director for the department of electrical engineering and computer sciences. When Prop 209 passed, banning all affirmative action in the state's public higher education systems, she said employees who had worked to ensure students of color would feel both prepared and welcome "faced daunting challenges" and had to scramble to comply with the new law through creative, holistic solutions.

"After a time wrestling with what was possible to achieve diversity goals, new approaches to admissions and outreach were developed," she said. "In outreach programs, for example, a student's own contribution to diversity"-as a societal value, not by nature of their identity-"was a new criterion for our summer research program."

Kruger said there's good reason to fight for race-specific recruitment programs. Proxies like first-generation and socioeconomic status can certainly help increase college access, he said, but when explicit references to race are removed, institutions lose an important lens on the programs' equity goals.

"You want to ensure that these young people from underrepresented communities have access even just to the idea of college," he said. "If you then take race out of it, you may also remove the dream or vision that these families might have gained, that this is something that we can do."

From the Courtroom to the Statehouse

Kruger said that when it comes to summer bridge programs for minority groups, the danger is more likely to come from a Republican attorney general or piece of state legislation -as it has for race-based scholarships in some states-than from a law firm. But that doesn't mean the threat is any less serious.

"I have talked to campuses where they have a bridge program designed to focus on, let's say, Black students, but their attorney general's liaison is advising them not to have a program that uses race as a definition, even though it may not be under the scope of the [Supreme Court] decision," he said. "You might consider it to be an overreaction, but I think it is born out of not wanting to be a target of the very powerful anti-DEI and affirmative action movement in some areas of the country."

He has also spoken with administrators who are standing by their race-conscious outreach and recruitment programs.

"Some institutions are not going to back away at all; they're going to be public about the fact that they're still offering programs for underrepresented students and they are willing to take the political heat for that," he said, adding that this tack is easier to take in blue states.

One such institution is Olin College, a small, private institution in Massachusetts that focuses on engineering. In addition to holding an in-person gathering for applicants in the spring, the college has long run a fully-funded fly-in program for interested students from underrepresented communities. Susan Hartley Brisson, Olin's director of admissions, said the program was "designed for students who are from backgrounds that have been historically excluded from engineering-Latinos, Black students, and also for women," and that it will remain so.

"I am expecting to connect with counsel, and obviously if they say, 'You can't do this any longer,' we'll have to make changes on the fly," she said. "But it seems as though recruitment won't be impacted, and we can still recruit towards specific racial groups."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What the affirmative action ban means for summer programs

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Precollege programs can help boost access for students from underrepresented communities. The Supreme Court's affirmative action ruling could force colleges to rethink them. Rice University president Reginald DesRoches launched his career as a civil engineer-turned-higher ed administrator back in the early 1980s, when he joined a summer bridge program for students from underrepresented backgrounds before his freshman year at the University of California, Berkeley.

# data[].attributes.headline
HBCU's place in higher ed post Affirmative Action ruling

# data[].attributes.subject
HBCU's place in higher ed post Affirmative Action ruling

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Supreme Court’s decision to strike down affirmative action means that HBCU investment is more important than ever | Brookings

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The June 29 Supreme Court decision on affirmative action effectively ends race-conscious admissions practices in higher education and erodes 40 years of precedent. In a 6-3 ruling, the majority used the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment—which was created to rectify the inequality faced by Black Americans—to disband the practice of race-conscious admissions. This decision in favor of neutrality denies the nation’s history of racial injustice, and as Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson stated in her dissent, “condemns our society to never escape the past that explains how and why race matters to the very concept of who ‘merits’ admission.”

# data[].attributes.headline
Potential legal issues on the horizon in the workplace

# data[].attributes.subject
Potential legal issues on the horizon in the workplace

# data[].attributes.headline
Hiring and recruitment after Affirmative Action ruling

# data[].attributes.subject
Hiring and recruitment after Affirmative Action ruling

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Affirmative Action Ruling May Upend Hiring Policies, Too

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Supreme Court decision on college admissions could lead companies to alter recruitment and promotion practices to pre-empt legal challenges.

# data[].attributes.headline
DEI in the workplace after Affirmative Action ruling

# data[].attributes.subject
DEI in the workplace after Affirmative Action ruling

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The US Supreme Court has officially struck down affirmative action, ending a forty-year precedent that allows universities to consider the race of applicants in their admissions processes. But the effects of the ruling could be felt beyond the world of higher education-and ripple into the workplace.

As Quartz has pointed out before, with affirmative action overruled, the court could apply similar logic to diversity in the workplace (especially in hiring practices, which are most analogous to admissions). Subsequent rulings in the workplace could limit a company from saying it wants to promote more women in engineering positions, for example, or instituting guidelines like the Rooney Rule that ensure at least one minority is interviewed for any position. Employers and advocates are understandably worried that other programs, like racial equity audits, or positions, like the chief diversity officer, could come into question.

But regardless of the cases' implications for affirmative action, it's not time for companies to preemptively pull back on their diversity and inclusion initiatives, says Bonnie Levine, a practicing employment attorney specializing in workplace DEI and founder of Verse Legal. "Emphatically, the legal framework is not identical, and there are different legal standards that come into play," she adds. Leaders shouldn't be rash, reactive, or alarmist in their responses. And they shouldn't rush to conclusions about their own DEI initiatives "by saying, 'Okay, now diversity is dead,'" she adds.

An imperfect analogy, she suggests, is how the court's overturning of Roe v. Wade relates to gay marriage. One ruling doesn't have bearing on the other. "Of course, people are rightly concerned about where the trajectory is going," she says. "But we don't suddenly start assuming that that's done."

The end of affirmative action doesn't mean the end of diversity programs at work-yet

So how can workplaces plan for-and protect-the future of their diversity and equity programs with affirmative action overturned? Quartz spoke with Levine about the first things employers should do when the ruling comes down.

Know how and where the ruling applies. The two cases the court ruled on-one involving the University of North Carolina, and the other involving Harvard University-have different legal frameworks than workplace protections. They apply to public schools (under the 14th Amendment, which guarantees "equal protection of the laws") and most private universities (under Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which bars discrimination at those that receive federal funding). Meanwhile, the workplace is covered under Title VII, which guarantees "equal employment opportunity" at private companies and the US government. The difference in that legal framework is why the ruling won't apply to corporate diversity, equity, and inclusion programs yet.

Resist the urge to run on assumptions. It's common-sense advice, Levine says, but worth underlining: Have lawyers read the ruling in full before imagining how it will apply to your company's diversity initiatives. "You really do have to look at all the facts before you draw takeaways," Levine says. "Looking at the opinion is the only way to know how much the reasoning from this decision will translate in the employment space."

Double down on diversifying your recruitment pools. Though the legal protections are different, there is a direct relationship between education and employment: Access to top jobs. University administrators say ending affirmative action will change the demographic makeup of graduating classes, with far fewer Black and Hispanic students at the most selective schools. And that changes who gets access to high-paying industries like finance, law, and consulting, which historically recruit hiring classes from elite institutions.

Companies should take the change as an opportunity to reckon with their recruiting practices, Levine says. Expand hiring efforts at universities with more diverse student bodies or those that serve specific groups (such as historically Black colleges and universities). Tap communities and professional organizations dedicated to underserved groups (say, , , or COOP Careers). Reexamine your hiring practices for inequities or implicit bias-and audit tech tools, too, which can bolster bias.

Stick to the value statements you've made already. "If private employers have taken a bold moral stance on something, and then they walk it back reactively, [it won't] go well for them," Levine says. Putting out ineffective DEI efforts-especially the kind that feels wishy-washy, performative, or, yes, reactive-can leave a company worse off than making no inclusion efforts at all. It can undermine morale, damage employees' trust in their company, and make it harder to authentically recruit a representative team.

Companies can't take back the values they've named. "If it becomes a little more complicated [for compliance], you figure out how to work within that," Levine says. "Adjust with the same values that you've already stated."

Alternately: Consider the court of public opinion. The law has been relieved of making companies accountable to their values, Levine adds, thanks to the rise of employee activism. "There's a quicker way through social media-and through social movements [like] Black Lives Matter and Me Too-for workplaces to be impacted by what the public is asking for from corporations," she says.

"I don't think consciousness is going away," Levine adds. And regardless of rulings, she says, employees and the public alike will notice when companies decide they'll quit giving everyone a seat at the table.

Editor's note: This story was originally published June 21 and updated June 29 after the US Supreme Court struck down affirmative action in a 6-3 and 6-2 vote. Follow the latest updates on the rulings here .

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Post-affirmative action, here's how to protect diversity at work

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
While the US Supreme Court has overruled affirmative action, companies don't need to rush to conclusions about their DEI programs-yet.

# data[].attributes.headline
Affirmative Action and the American Workforce

# data[].attributes.subject
Affirmative Action and the American Workforce

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What Killing Affirmative Action Means for the American Workplace

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The end of affirmative action makes it harder to have the diverse professional workforce the country needs.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
A Full Court Press: Making Bold Moves for Racial Justice in the Face of Uncertainty - Schott Foundation

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Sign up to receive the next philos issue Philos Issue 5 A Full Court Press: Making Bold Moves for Racial Justice in the Face of Uncertainty Last month, the U.S. Supreme Court outlawed affirmative action in higher education. While the decision is troubling, it should not impede the important work of foundations and nonprofits working ...

# data[].attributes.headline
Workforce Matters - Loh-Sze Leung and Clair Minson

# data[].attributes.subject
Workforce Matters - Loh-Sze Leung and Clair Minson

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
From Co-Directors Loh-Sze Leung and Clair Minson:
The Supreme Court's rulings that struck down race-based admissions at Harvard and at the University of North Carolina set back decades of progress toward greater diversity and inclusion in higher education.

Affirmative action programs and policies have long been a critical tool for advancing racial equity and creating opportunities for people of color that have experienced the impacts of a long legacy of discrimination and inequity.

Both of us were dismayed by the Supreme Court's rulings that struck down race-based admissions at Harvard and at the University of North Carolina. Dismayed, but not surprised. The rulings were the latest in a long and growing list of legislation in this country aimed at halting progress towards racial equity. Unfortunately, retrenchment is par for the course in the fight for justice.

At Workforce Matters, we continue to be committed to fostering racial equity in the workforce development community, as outlined in our Racial Equity Framework for Workforce Development Funders. We will continue to work for and support efforts leading to equitable employment and education outcomes.

We believe funders have a responsibility to consider how we are using our power, influence, grant making, and roles within our institutions to contribute to or dismantle systemic racism. An equitable workforce development ecosystem acknowledges the historical presence of structural and systemic racism that are barriers to prosperity for Black, Indigenous, Latinx/Hispanic, Asian American, Pacific Islander, and other People of Color; as well as the current policies and practices by which institutions have perpetuated that racism.
It is not possible to achieve the goal of racial equity using race neutral methodologies or measures blind to the impacts and legacies of systemic racism.
Last week's rulings were disappointing and unfortunate, and some fear that they will have spillover effects in other areas of education and employment. However, the simple fact is that for now, the scope of the rulings is limited to race-conscious college admissions.
Therefore, we encourage our members to continue investing in efforts that advance racial equity, address racial disparities, and ensure diversity and inclusion in education, training, and employment.
If you are looking for concrete actions as we move forward, we would like to invite interested funders to participate in a conversation in early August to learn more about the impacts of this ruling and to discuss opportunities to use all of the tools at their disposal to increase support for advancing racial equity and justice. Please reach out to info@workforce-matters.org to be added to our interest list.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Statement on the Supreme Court's Ruling on Affirmative Action

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
From Co-Directors Loh-Sze Leung and Clair Minson: The Supreme Court's rulings that struck down race-based admissions at Harvard and at the University of North Carolina set back decades of progress ...

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
7.31.23by Amanda Cage * Racial Equity

By now most people know about the Supreme Court's disappointing decision to end affirmative action and many of us are still processing what impact it may have on our work and the lives of those we support. Personally, I mourn the loss of one of the few long-standing tools for increasing racial equity in America - especially as a person who benefitted from affirmative action policies in my own educational journey.

But while the end of affirmative action is a setback, I don't see it as a nail in a coffin. Yes, the headwinds we face in our work are blowing harder than ever, but this decision should serve as a catalyst to spark innovative thinking around how we move forward and accelerate change. The National Fund remains steadfast in our commitment to dismantling racial inequity in the workforce and creating a better economic outlook for people of color.

In her dissent, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson said, "...deeming race irrelevant in law does not make it so in life...Race still matters to the lived experiences of all Americans in innumerable ways, and today's ruling makes things worse, not better. If the colleges of this country are required to ignore a thing that matters, it will not just go away. It will take longer for racism to leave us. And, ultimately, ignoring race just makes it matter more."

I couldn't agree more with Justice Jackson's sentiments. America cannot just bury its collective head in the sand and pretend racism is no longer a problem to be solved. We must actively address the unique, systemic challenges that plague communities of color - even with one less tool in the toolbox.

So, now that we've lost one tool in the toolbox, how do we solve this? Affirmative action policies focused mainly on ensuring qualified students of color gained acceptance to elite 4-year institutions whose doors were previously closed to them. The reality is that the majority of people of color navigate a different path through post-secondary education toward jobs and careers. We need more resources to flow into credential programs at community colleges, HBCUs, and other minority-serving institutions that aren't in the spotlight. We need resources that will help mitigate barriers that cause people to drop out.

One of the National Fund's current program priorities centers on exploring the career navigation journeys of people of color and leading efforts to bring together community colleges, industry partnerships, and employers to disrupt the drivers of occupational segregation within the postsecondary education system. I'm looking forward to seeing what fresh solutions rise to the top of this innovative work.

Simply put, racial inequity holds us all back. Though affirmative action will not be the tool that gets us to where we need to be, its loss shouldn't prevent us from finally ridding ourselves of this centuries-old problem.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Pressing Forward Beyond Affirmative Action | National Fund for Workforce Solutions

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
By now most people know about the Supreme Court's disappointing decision to end affirmative action and many of us are still processing what impact it may have on our work and the lives of those we...

# data[].attributes.headline
Statement from Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law

# data[].attributes.subject
Statement from Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law