BY MARK S. JAMES
One of the most discussed passages from the Supreme Court’s majority opinion on affirmative action comes at the very end. It reads:
At the same time, nothing prohibits universities from considering an applicant’s discussion of how race affected the applicant’s life, so long as that discussion is concretely tied to a quality of character or unique ability that the particular applicant can contribute to the university. Many universities have for too long wrongly concluded that the touchstone of an individual’s identity is not challenges bested, skills built, or lessons learned, but the color of their skin. This Nation’s constitutional history does not tolerate that choice.
Of course critics are correct to point out that this small allowance for the consideration of race runs up against the rest of the opinion’s logic so that if an admissions officer writes in their notes something along the lines of “This student has indicated that they are Black, so let’s give it special consideration,” they will be inviting yet another lawsuit from another student who was not given that special consideration.
However, as I read this concluding passage, it occurs to me that the justice may be telling us a rather simple story of what racial inclusion looks like to them and conservatives like them. I infer from this passage and from the opinion’s valid critique of the implied stereotype that those from minority groups think alike is a desire to exclude certain members of these groups, presumably those who don’t think a certain way. For me the question is what kind of narratives would Justices Roberts, Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett expect to see in successful applications?
Considering the attacks on critical race theory and larger efforts to prevent us from collectively wrestling with America’s racial history, I believe what the court means by “quality of character,” “unique ability that . . . can contribute to the university,” “challenges bested, skill built, [and] lessons learned” is that these students will craft individual narratives of overcoming adversity and heroic assimilation. Or, to the extent that applicants remain committed to their racial communities, then they will talk about how they have used whatever privilege they have to help those communities survive, or perhaps helped some other individuals “succeed” within the established confines of conservative or reactionary worldviews.
In other words, it seems to me that the court is saying that it would be okay with them to deny admission to students of color who express values, opinions, and beliefs that threaten conservative or reactionary worldviews, even if—perhaps especially if!—their arguments are more accurate and convincing.
A potential unintended consequence is that by effectively requiring applicants of color to tell (or create) recognizable stories of overcoming adversity due to race is the likelihood of rejecting highly qualified students of color who will not mention their race in the essay because they do not yet know that they have been denied anything because of it. Most will probably go on to be accepted by their second, third, fourth, or later choices, but many of them will suddenly learn that they have a story after all when they realize that the difference between being accepted to their dream school or not was the ability to tick a box. Now, because of that, yet another white applicant was accepted with much the same background as all the other white applicants who were accepted. Unlike the student of color, that student will not be in a position to learn how being a person of color has affected them in ways they simply weren’t in a position to appreciate when they were a seventeen-year-old filling out college applications, and won’t be in the classroom to explore what that means with the white students who would have been accepted even with affirmative action.
And, by striking down Biden’s student loan forgiveness plan, the court seeks to make sure that if any students of color do get accepted and have to take on student loan debt, they will heed the economic imperative to avoid pursuing degrees in fields—including the humanities and social sciences—where they could develop this critical consciousness and potentially become a real threat. They will instead keep their eyes on the bottom line and pursue “practical” degrees (for example, in business or nursing) that will keep them in line while in school, and in the thrall of their future employers after they graduate.
I know for a fact that affirmative action made it possible for me to get into the elite universities where I earned my BA (University of Southern California) and PhD (University of Chicago). Student loans made it possible for me get through all the way to the PhD, and student loan forgiveness through the Public Service Loan Forgiveness program (PSLF) has freed up 10 percent of my discretionary income to use on other things, and even to save a little. Therefore, I view these decisions by the court as direct attacks on the very narrow pathway that made it possible for someone like me to be where I am today. While it has cost me a great deal to get where I am, I can say that I don’t regret any of the choices I’ve made. If the goal was to make more stories like mine possible, these options should have remained available unless and until better ones were put into place. But that is clearly not the goal.
Mark S. James is associate professor of English at Molloy University, president of Molloy’s AAUP chapter, a member of the AAUP’s Committee A on Academic Freedom and Tenure, and a contributing editor for Academe Blog.
