Michigan Chronicle

If You Thought The Battle Was Over, The Supreme Court Reminds Us It Ain’t!

In a 1983 speech to staff members at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which he headed, Clarence Thomas cited laws that must be appropriately followed and adhered to, i.e., Civil Rights Act of 1964, Voting Rights Act of 1965, which dealt with the advancement and protection of the rights of Blacks in America. He indicated their paramount importance to him. He said, “But for them God only knows where I would be today. They are all that stand between the first 17 years of my life and the second 17 years.” These laws affirmed the necessary action along with Affirmative Action that must be taken to provide equal opportunity and access to the American dream. In a 1991 New York Times article, Yale University officials indicated that Thomas was admitted “Under an explicit Affirmative Action plan with the goal of having Black and other minority members make up about 10% of the entering class.”

Today, in a 58-page concurrence with the majority opinion to end Affirmative Action Thomas writes, “The solution to our nations racial problems thus cannot come from policies grounded in Affirmative Action or some other conception of equity.” He argues that the constitution requires “Colorblind government policies. Only that promise can allow us to look past our differing skin colors and identities.”

Yet we still wrestle with Article 1

Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution which states “For purposes of representation in Congress, enslaved Black people in a state would be counted as three-fifths of the number of white inhabitants of that state.” It would appear that there are those that still prefer 3/5s rather than one whole as we deal with over 400 voter suppression bills in state houses around the nation, the elimination of student debt relief for 44 million people by this same court, elimination of LGBTQ rights, and the obvious disregard for the systemic barriers that prevent movement up the American ladder of opportunity.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor in a scathing dissent writes to this extremist majority, “The court cements a superficial rule of colorblindness as a constitutional principle in an endemically segregated society where race has always

SCOTUS Ruling Against Race-Based Admissions Means Predominantly White Institutions Must Respond

By Jeremy Allen

The Supreme Court’s decision to walk back its decades-long ruling that colleges and universities could consider race when admitting students marks a notable end to an affirmative action policy that was aimed at leveling the playing field for minorities when applying to top-tier institutions of higher learning.

The court ruled 6-3 and 6-2, respectively, against race consideration in admission policies at the University of North Carolina and Harvard, with the Republican justices ruling in the majority and the Democrat justices ruling in the minority.

Angelique Power is the President and CEO of the Detroit-based Skillman Foundation, a 63-year-old grantmaking organization that has awarded more than $730 million in service of strengthening childhood education, racial equity, and justice.

Power was critical of the ruling, saying that ensuring diverse populations in higher education is a fundamental aspect of preparing students for complex real-world situations that will exist beyond the classroom.

“Diversity in educational institutions is not merely a social ideal,” she said. “The United States Supreme Court’s 6-3 ruling… banning colleges and universities from race-conscious admissions marks a setback in our collective pursuit of a truly equal and inclusive society, and it undermines the progress we have made toward fostering learning environments that benefit all students.”

Black Justice Clarence Thomas was among the most vocal proponents of shooting down race-based considerations in college admissions, calling for more “race-neutral policies” to be implemented across the country.

“[Race-neutral policies] achieve the same benefits of racial harmony and equality with- out any of the burdens and strife generated by affirmative action policies,” Thomas said in his concurring opinion.

The irony of Thomas’ opinion, however, is that by many accounts, he himself was a beneficiary of race-based admissions when he attended Yale University.

A 1991 New York Times article about Thomas reported that Yale officials confirmed that Thomas was admitted to its law school “under an explicit affirmative action plan with the goal of having Blacks and other minority members make up about 10 percent of the entering class.”

In Michigan, affirmative action was ended after a statewide vote in 2006 banned public institutions from using programs that give preferential treatment to groups or individuals based on their race, gender, color, ethnicity, or national origin for public employment, education, or contracting purposes.

But that ruling hasn’t stopped top-tier institutions like the University of Michigan from implementing programs that benefit people in cities with higher-than-average Black populations.

U-M has a program called Wolverine Pathways that “seeks to confront the barriers that limit the college and career aspirations of highly motivated students from under-resourced communities,” including Detroit, Ypsilanti, Southfield, and Grand Rapids.

The university also launched its Go Blue Guarantee more than five years ago – a promise to fully fund the education of qualifying students whose household income is below $75,000 per year.

Dr. Jelani Jefferson Exum, Dean of the University of Detroit Mercy School of Law, is a two-time Harvard graduate, also expressed her disappointment in the Supreme Court’s ruling, but said that it came as no surprise.

“The Supreme Court’s decision is really divorced from what we know about the truth of the way that race plays out in society,” she said. “Even if the law deems race irrelevant, we know that life does not. That’s what schools will have to continue to face in making sure that we are, within the bounds of the law set by the Supreme Court, to continue to recruit diverse classes and to continue to lift up our students of all backgrounds.”

To Exum’s point, the focus now shifts to predominantly white institutions across the country to pick up the ball that was dropped by highest court in the land. Like U-M and other institutions, colleges and universities now assume the duty of implementing programs that will allow for under-represented populations (predominantly Black and brown students) to have access to the education and careers that many of their white counterparts are granted through affirmative action policies that weren’t excluded from consideration with this ruling.

The Supreme Court did not ban gender consciousness in college admissions, nor did it ban legacy consciousness, wealth consciousness, geographic consciousness, or athletic consciousness.

This decision sent a clear message that America is ill-equipped to deal with its historic transgressions against Black people, and that the predominant authorities on justice and equity don’t believe that the systematic disenfranchisement of Black people in America is grave enough to ensure that minorities gain ground in our centuries-long battle for freedom through education.

Inevitably, we cannot rely on systems that were not built for us, but we live in a society that creates barriers for us when we try to navigate independently. Thus, it is mandatory for institutions that claim to have our best interests in mind to prove it. The time is now and the clock is ticking.

Supreme Court Dismantles Biden’s Plan to Wipe Away $400B in Student Loans

By Ebony JJ Curry SENIOR WRITER

This ruling by the Supreme Court has delivered a significant blow to President Biden’s efforts to alleviate the burden of student loan debt in America. The decision highlights the ongoing debate about the separation of powers and the extent of executive authority. Unequivocally, it underscores the critical role of Congress in shaping policies to address the mounting student loan crisis.

The 6-3 decision, with conservative justices in the majority, leaves borrowers on the left astray for repayments that are expected to resume by late August under a schedule initially set by the administration and included in the agreement to raise the debt ceiling. Payments that have been on hold since the start of the coronavirus pandemic more than three years ago.

Millions of Americans were hopeful that the Biden administration’s plan would offer relief from the crippling weight of student loan debt, which has hindered their ability to achieve financial stability.

President Biden’s plan aimed to provide much-needed relief to Americans burdened by the ever-growing student loan debt, which has reached staggering levels in recent years. The proposal sought to cancel student loan debt for borrowers with a household income of less than $125,000 and forgive a portion of debt for those earning between $125,000 and $250,000. However, the Supreme Court’s ruling deemed the plan unconstitutional, citing concerns over the separation of powers and the overreach of executive authority. This decision reflects a longstanding debate on the balance of power between the branches of government and the limits of executive action.

The ruling has sparked a wave of disappointment and frustration among borrowers who were eagerly awaiting relief. Student loan debt has been a significant burden for many Americans, hampering their ability to buy homes, start businesses, and save for the future. For years, activists and advocates have been pushing for comprehensive solutions to address the student loan crisis, arguing that it not only impacts individual borrowers but also hampers economic growth and exacerbates inequality.

Not to mention that four years after graduation, the average Black borrower owes $53,000, while the average white borrower owes $28,000, according to the Brookings Institute, meaning they are unable mattered and continues to matter. The court subverts the constitutional guarantee of equal protection by further entrenching racial inequality in education.”

The court has seemingly, in the view of Sotomayor, turned its back on 45 years of jurisprudence aimed at promoting more inclusive and equal schools. It appears that the concept of stare decisis, a Latin term meaning to stand by things that are decided, in other words precedent, is now a dream deferred.

Just about every candidate for the U.S. Supreme Court when asked will they adhere to precedent answers in a resounding “Of course, precedent is critical to the court.” One must ask, is it really? Blacks have established a precedent for commitment, patriotism, and even love for this nation which seems to be overlooked. Frederick Douglass pointed out to Abe Lincoln when the unions very survival was on the line, “Black Americans in the south were almost the only reliable friends the nation had. But for their help the rebels might have succeeded in breaking up the union.”

Senator John Sherman during reconstruction said “We are bound by every obligation, by Black Americans service on the battlefield, by their heroes who are buried in our cause, by their patriotism in the hours that tried our country. We are bound to protect them and all their rights.”

It is indeed informative that the only part of Affirmative Action that can still be maintained is that race can still be used as a factor in admission criteria for military academies to teach about fighting war. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson describes it well, “Racial diversity in higher education is only worth potentially preserving as it might be needed to prepare Black Americans and other minorities for success in the bunker but not the boardroom.” In other words, we are valued enough to die for America, but not worthy enough to live a quality of life in America. It is clear to the three Supreme dissent- ers, Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson, as stated by Justice Jackson, “No one benefits from ignorance. 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. Ignoring race just makes it matter more.”

This is America at the crossroads. It is not a battle between Clarence Thomas and Ketanji Brown Jackson, the two Blacks who sit on the court. It is a battle between a glorious future or a recalcitrant past. A battle between an America of inclusion or a nation of eternal exclusion. It is not a battle between Asians, African Americans, Latinos, or Native Americans. Let us not be reduced to that and let no one take advantage of an attempted wedge that is being forced between our groups. Legacy offers Black and brown people no security, for our families have never been able to take advantage of any prior opportunities. Edward Blum, the bearer of this lawsuit against Harvard University and the University of North Carolina has, along with many conservative groups, been attempting to dismantle the Voting Rights Act, Civil Rights Act, Roe vs. Wade, and Affirmative Action. They now have the advantage of a court that leans more towards rewriting a negative history than forging a pathway toward a positive future. We must pursue Diversity No Matter What. It is good business. It costs more to maintain discrimination and racism than that which is required to provide opportunity and equity to all people.

Following the murder of George Floyd, companies and business leaders across the nation committed themselves to diversity and inclusion. They indicated they would look inside their companies to implement policies and programs that would provide opportunity, particularly for minorities. This has to be more than just talking the talk. One has to really walk the walk. Several corporate leaders and their top executives stood in Downtown Detroit, stating publicly their commitment to the cause of diversity and inclusion.

Now, following the attempted death of Affirmative Action, is the heart for inclusion still beating with any vigor to maintain such commitment? Diversity is still a great tool to expand talent, share ideas, be inspired by creativity, and to increase the profit margin. Chief Justice John Roberts did leave a doorway to opportunity when he wrote in his decision, “Nothing in this opinion should be construed as prohibiting universities from considering an applicants discussion of how race affected his or her life, be it through discrimination, inspiration, or otherwise.” So now is not the time to stand down.

Now is the time to stand up. The adversity that students have faced to achieve their accomplishments in life, financial needs of the family, are all metrics that can be used in the application process. The effects of racism upon your forward movement must be considered. It is the racial box that can no longer be checked. The economic disparities between Black and white families are very apparent as reflected in 2019 and beyond. As an example, just four years ago Black family’s median wealth was approximately $24,000, white families was approximately eight times as much at $188,000.

White families with college degrees have over $300,000 more wealth than Black families with college degrees. The disparity according to the National Academy of Education, citing U.S. Census Bureau statistics, has accelerated over time from a roughly $40,000 gap between white and Black household median net worth in 1993 to a roughly $135,000 gap in 2019. Median income numbers from 2019 tell a similar story - $76,056 for white households, $98,174 for Asian households, $56,113 for Latino households, and $45,438 for Black households. It is clear that there is room for growth and room for inclusion.

We must not sit on our laurels and accept the dismantling of opportunity in our nation. We have come too far to be turned back. It is indeed revealing, as we celebrate the 60th anni- versary of the great march in the city of Detroit, June 1963, as well as in Washington, D.C. in August of that same year. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. declared to the nation, “I Have A Dream.” He said he came to Washington “To collect on a check that was due to Black America.” But he found that the check came back marked “insufficient funds.” In 2023 the check is still bouncing. However, Ella Baker, former Director of Branches for the NAACP in New York and throughout the south, also had a declaration. It was very simply, “We who believe in freedom cannot rest until it comes.” Certainly, to all of those who believe in freedom, democracy, and equity, regardless of race, location, or station, WE MUST FIGHT UNTIL WE WIN! to focus on those financial goals. Eliminating this debt will start to narrow the racial wealth gap for young families, with 86.6% of Black students taking out federal loans to attend four-year colleges.

Rev. Al Sharpton, Founder and President of the National Action Network (NAN), condemned the Supreme Court’s 6-3 decision to block President Biden’s student debt relief plan as an assault on young Black and Brown Americans.

“A day after the Supreme Court stuck a knife in the back of Black America, a majority of justices have now cut the ladder out from under us. Generations of Black youth were sold a bill of goods that higher education was a pathway out of poverty – only to be saddled with crushing debt that never lets them see their dreams fully realized. President Biden’s relief plan would have provided a little help for millions caught up in this broken promise. Now, the Supreme Court has ruled even a mere $10,000 is too much, especially when the average Black college graduate owes well over $50,000.

The argument presumes that debt cancellation would provide immediate relief and stimulate economic growth, on the other hand, critics of the plan argue that it unfairly rewards those who made choices to pursue higher education without considering the financial consequences. They emphasize the importance of personal responsibility and caution against creating moral hazards by bailing out borrowers who knowingly took on substantial debt.

With the Supreme Court’s rejection of President Biden’s plan, the focus now shifts to Congress. Lawmakers must seize this opportunity to craft effective legislation that addresses the student loan crisis in a manner that is constitutional and comprehensive. The burden falls upon them to develop solutions that consider the needs of borrowers while upholding the principles of governance.

The disappointment and frustration among borrowers following this ruling are indisputable. The hopes of many who had envisioned a future unburdened by student loan debt have been crippled.

Nevertheless, it is crucial to remember that setbacks can often serve as catalysts for renewed determination and action.

As we move forward, it is vital for us to engage in open dialogue, explore alternative solutions, and rally behind policymakers who champion the cause of student loan debt reform. The Supreme Court’s decision may have halted one plan, but it should not deter our collective pursuit of a fair and sustainable resolution to this crisis.

The student loan debt crisis remains an urgent issue that affects the lives of millions of Americans. It is a problem that demands our attention, empathy, and a commitment to finding workable solutions. By coming together and harnessing the power of our collective voices, we can ensure that the dreams and aspirations of generations burdened by student loan debt are not extinguished, but instead, ignited with the promise of a brighter future.

Continue to follow The Michigan Chronicle for more on this developing story.