OPINION
TUFTS V. DIVERSITY
ON TRIAL
By Leah Cohen
T
his Halloween, the greatest fright was a terrifying, bonechilling pack of ghouls—the United States Supreme Court—receiving oral arguments for two cases poised to decimate the barest semblance of equity in college admissions across the nation: affirmative action. The most conservative Supreme Court bench in 90 years has had a marathon two years and this year it’s tackling some of its most controversial social-policy-oriented cases yet. In this case, lawyers from the organization Students for Fair Admissions presented their case for why affirmative action—the use of race as a factor in college admissions—is a violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Tufts joined 32 other colleges and universities in submitting amicus briefs in support of our neighboring university down the red line, Harvard, and of affirmative action as a practice. As oral arguments began in Washington, D.C. this year, Tufts students received an email from the Office of the President titled, “Statement on Supreme Court Cases regarding College Admissions.” Tony Monaco wrote, “At Tufts, we celebrate diversity and recognize its power to enlighten, teach, and bridge differences. Indeed, it is foundational to our mission to provide transformative experiences for students, faculty, and staff in an inclusive and collaborative environment.”
18 TUFTS OBSERVER NOVEMBER 21, 2022
Obviously, this is a sentiment we can all get behind, generally speaking. But in the face of recent news about discrimination in the Tufts Admissions office, as well as the data available on the university’s “diversity dashboard,” these words ring hollow. For an institution such as Tufts—famously need-aware in their admissions—this case presents a moment for reflection: Do we accurately practice the principles of affirmative action? The phrase affirmative action was first used by former President John F. Kennedy to describe a directive for federal agencies to intentionally and proactively diversify their employee base by ensuring applicants are treated equally without regard to race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. This directive also established the Committee on Employment Opportunity. Following this, colleges began to implement this tactic of affirmatively assessing their admissions standards and structuring them to include race—and the impact of structural racism—in their assessment of prospective student applications. The prime driver of the war on affirmative action is a conservative activist named Edward Blum, also famous for being a key architect in Shelby County v. Holder, the 2013 SCOTUS case that decimated the Voting Rights Act. Blum is the frontman of a vast network of far-right donors, litigants,