The SCOTUS ruled for the disestablishment of Affirmative Action; again through what it seems to be falling under party lines. This raised many concerns.
Article 2 of 3 regarding the recent U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) Rulings.
The U.S. Supreme Court Conservative Majority decided on several cases that will reshape the way U.S. legislation could be affected for generations to come. This is the second of a three articles’ series covering the SCOTUS recent ruling, and what does it mean to America. Let’s take a look at the disestablishment of Affirmative Action.
In the previous articles we spoke about the case regarding a fictitious same-sex web site – as in the fact that there were zero actual same-sex customers asking this lady for a web-site for their wedding. It seems that I will have to do a follow up on that article, because there is a lot more skewed facts we are learning. In the next article we’ll speak about and the Student Loan Forgiveness cases, there is also quite a developing story on that. For all of these cases the Supreme Court rules 6-3. That means that the six conservative Supreme Court Justices decided against all dissenting parties for the Three non-conservative Supreme Court Justices.
So, what is the big deal?
This case was for the Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. versus President and Fellows of Harvard College. The case entered argument into the Supreme court on October 31, 2022 and decided on June 29, 2023. By the ruling on this case, then affirmative action gets de-facto disestablished by any other educational institution who would want to prevent admissions based on the language for Affirmative Action.
This case is also a huge deal because to reach to affirmative action it took a lot tribulations, and even blood-shed from previous generations. How? Let me give you a few; police brutality, domestic terrorism, lynchings, unfair-trials towards minorities due to hate and segregation, etc. There is plenty of evidence for those unsavory times in our history. Not only world-history, but also our very own American History. But collectively we’ve gotten better as a nation. This reverse in ruling will set us back.
Does that sound hyperbolic? Many people who think that all the unpleasant challenges minorities from the past had to endure are surpassed; yes, people who subscribe to that thought would like to assert as much. But the fact is that although we are a lot better than we were in decades past, there is still disenfranchisement, racism, and other unsavory factors that in many ways subjugate people in our country. Especially the subjugation comes via some confused personalities who consider minorities “different,” or worse “inferior” to them.
And if you are from the school of thought that such a situation does not occur in America, then congratulations, you’re in a privileged stratum; and likely insulated from the harsh realities a lot of Americans face as a fact of life. And privilege does not mean that you have to be in a particular socio-economical group. Yes, even if you are a minority yourself. Privilege is a lot more complex than simple skin color, or even how much money you have in the bank. And that fundamental misunderstanding is why it can be such an incendiary topic to deal with for some people who just “don’t see what the big deal is all about.” And of course, it opens the door to a lot of confusion and misinformation for anybody who would prefer to keep a particular segment of the population misinformed. Remember, misinformation equals undue convenience to somebody pushing a nefarious agenda.
For this article I will not delve too much into the history of Affirmative Action, because there are plenty of scholars who go in exuberant detail about these tribulations. What my intent brings to the table is to understand how this false dichotomy works in a contemporary reality, and provide a point of view that is often obfuscated.
In either case, remember that YOU are NOT responsible for any unsavory thing any of your ancestors might have perpetrated towards others. Even if this unsavory deed was unintentional. With that said, we are all very much responsible for what we do now. And understanding how these otherwise obscure factors play in the very fabric of our society is a good starting point.
The importance of Diversity.
One of the strengths that truly makes the United Sates of America the most influential nation in the world is one her greatest treasures, our diversity. Having people from all walks of life and collaborating in a manner that allows us to join our collective knowledge and experiences is the very reason why we’ve been so successful in the world stage. In other words, our diversity breaks an otherwise homogenous mold that curtails our very progress. However, this success has not been attained without a lot of roadblocks along the way. Particularly from people who have a distain for diversity.
And the fact is that a lot of those people who are acting as road-blocks for diversity might not even be aware of the negative role they are playing. For example, there are those who are unwittingly racists, homophobic, or otherwise extremely offensive to a segment of the population. And yes, people who fall under that category might even feel personally insulted by the very insinuation that they are being accused of being unfair to other people. Well, as a minority in the country I can tell you that this happens a lot, even to me personally. Most people, just like me, just won’t make it obvious we have been insulted – or that we are being treated in a condescending or patronizing manner.
Let me give you an example from my early U.S. Navy years. I worked with a couple of Sailors who were born in Mexico, I was born in Ecuador. In our department there was this other Sailor born in the U.S. who was married to a lady also born in the U.S. Well, this lady thought it was acceptable, funny, and even “cute” referring to at least one of the Sailors born in Mexico as “Taco.” Yes, you read that right. She would greet him with a very engaging smile and endearing tone “Hi Taco.” In her mind this was acceptable. And for the record, no this was not acceptable. However, the group would be the better person and just rolled with it. It did not make the situation any less cringeworthy. Yes, she did that quite often. And true that maybe she did not mean it in a bad way. To this day I truly think she thought it was cute or endearing.
Personally, I have been subjected a lot of episodes while in USA and even while in uniform in the Navy. Again, some of these offenders were perhaps unaware of their exceedingly insulting remarks or attitudes towards minorities. And to be honest, in some instances it even seemed futile to even try to rationalize it with them. It is an abstract concept to explain, but if you have ever had to deal with that then you know EXACTLY what I mean by that. And the fact is that ignorant comments and actions towards minorities are essentially commonplace. And again, if a person is coming from a more privileged stratum, they might be unaware of their actions.
And yes, some of those ignorant remarks might be coming from one minority against another, or from one group of people to another. Neither case makes this acceptable.
Rewinding back to our history, and not needing to go too far back, we can see several instances of minorities or other underrepresented groups in society being disenfranchised. And understand that this does not imply that people in the majority, or those who are not a minority are automatically bad people. That does not what I am trying to say at all.
In fact, the majority of people in the United Sates of America, no matter what color of skin they have are actually very much open to diversity and very cognizant of what is and is not acceptable in society. That is by the way one of the reasons why we are the most influential country on the planet. For you see this is not a “race” issue pers say, it is a “people” issue that gets clouded by people who do not understand that we are actually one race, the human race. In scientific terms, we are all part of the homo-sapiens species (which means wise man as in man with knowledge).
Which makes it the more cringeworthy that some educational institutions were against this level of acceptance.
In other words, being tactful to one another is not just a race thing, it is a common courtesy thing. For instance, we are not supposed say a derogatory or condescending remark to another human just because we feel entitled to do so. Doing so does not make somebody superior, just makes them an asshole. The same thing is true when someone is being patronizing or condescending to others because they just happen to look a bit different on the outside.
And understanding this multicultural strength as a nation is something I hold very dear. While attached to this ship (USS COLE DDG 67), I led the Diversity / Multicultural Committee for several months. A different person onboard gest appointed for a range or months to lead this effort. For me it was between 2021 and 2022. We had a lot of celebrations onboard for ALL our Sailors. Example of for that included Black History Month, Women’s History Month, Pride Month, Asian & Pacific Islander Month, Hispanic Heritage, etc. Everyone onboard was welcome and invited as we celebrated our diversity onboard. Which includes people from all walks of life and even a lot of U.S. Navy Sailors who were born abroad, but serve in our Armed Forces.
And for anybody who would have any confusion, these events were not a way to disenfranchise anybody from a Caucasian group, even though there is no “Caucasian Month.” Of course every Sailor understood this, but I bring it up because I realize that in the rest of the country there are several people who don’t quite get it. So I figure it should be explained.
Every segment of the population who gest a “month” to celebrate is because they had unfortunately been oppressed by the status-quo in some shape of form. And yes, it too a lot of tribulations (which at least in some cases included people from any of these minorities being brutally murdered for speaking up), and after a lot of litigation finally resolved by the incumbent Supreme Court ruling to reverse negative trends – and afford actual equal opportunity. The level of equal opportunity we enjoy today was not automatic to the segments of the population with a designated “celebration” month. Each one of those events are celebrated as a reminder of how we can right some wrongs even though it took a lot of effort on each case. It helps us remember that the opportunity to even talk about it was never automatically granted.
For example, did you know that women were considered second class citizens in the great USA for a while, and they could not vote until the year 1920 after it was introduced to Congress in 1878 – that’s 42 years later, by the way. So in that example alone, race was not the only defining factor. That was a case of sexism and misogyny. Has sexism and misogyny been eradicated around the world, or even in the USA? (No, it has not). But what I can tell you is that a country’s culture does take time, sometimes significant time to evolve. And this could span a few generations depending on how “normalized” the subjugation of a segment of the population was enacted in a particular society.
Let me give an example close to home. When I was growing in Ecuador, even as contemporary as the early 90’s – that country had very much enforced gender roles. And these would be enforced by both men and women, especially those women from a previous generation (one and two generations back). Examples of that shortsighted world included but were not limited to the following: Women should be in the kitchen, and men should be in the garage. Yes, that stark. Girls would pay with dolls, and boys would play with cars. Women were supposed to have long hair, men are supposed to have short hair. Men were looked down or even called a derogatory euphemism for LGBTQ if they wanted to wear earrings. And I can go on for hours, but this was not only limited to Ecuador. This status-quo in some ways ware the norm around many places in the world. But it was missing a fundamental sense of self-governance and self-expression.
Does a man who is choosing wearing long hair makes him any less of a man? Back in Ecuador as I was growing the school authorities would say “yes” – my rebuttal was as follows: Well, look at history and some of the greatest conquerors had long hair, and were quite ornated themselves. Further, back in the day male monarchs and nobles were the ones wearing high-heels. Then again, what is your definition for “less of a man?” I wrote it this way because I wanted the wheels in our minds to start spinning on the inner monologue and inevitable conundrums.
A subjective understanding.
The crux for this topic is actually not “black and white,” instead it is a very complex gradient. And that is why I chose to write about it. The core issue is very subjective, because what one group could find offensive could be considered acceptable by a different group. What does that mean? Remember my example about the lady who called the gentlemen born in Mexico “taco?” In her mind this was totally acceptable, and she likely even meant it as something endearing. Was that endearing for this gentleman? No, it wasn’t. It was cringeworthy, but he did not want to hurt her feelings, because it would have demonstrated that she was exceedingly tone-deaf and “accidentally-racists” when it came to the way she just in essence repeatedly insulted him.
And I said it before, but it is worth repeating it. For some of us who are in any kind of minority groups, there is literally a bombardment of instances we face like this. Some more on the nose than others. When that happens, most of us just look the other way, because even trying to rationalize or to bring attention to that issue to an offending party is exhausting. In other words, when a person is that misinformed and essentially ignorant to why they are being offensive, that means that they have already missed so much more context. Therefore trying to even bring them to a point where they are committing the actual infraction is already many layers into the weeds. And trying to explain that to somebody if you want to correct them, it really becomes something we don’t even want to deal with. No matter how tactful we are, the aftermath is not going to be pretty. And we know that.
If YOU have been one of those tone-deaf people who had committed such a faux-pas, and were not confronted… the following might be a tell-tale sign if you fucked up. Immediately after you said something insulting or ignorant, the first reaction for the person was to smile (not showing teeth), with a slight bend in their brow, slow tilting head down and raising their eyes slow up level and keeping a few seconds of silence… while holding this closed-no-teeth-smile. Then they might even laugh and say (sarcastically) something either self-deprecating or change the subject. In between the time you said something stupid and somebody caught it, there is a lot of information moving in their heads – they are assessing if it is relevant to even address what you utter that was so wrong. If it was so wrong that it was borderline impossible to explain how idiotic was your comment in less than 25 seconds, then they will deflect. You’re not worth their outrage, even if they are insulted. They learned all they needed to learn about your tone-deafness and will either avoid you or keep on living, but they might cringe a little every time you are around. Now you know.
Again, if you every had to deal with this situation, then you know exactly what I mean by that. Somebody committing an offense could very well be unintentional. But that does not mean that it was not an offense. And yes, people saying stupid thing do come in all skin colors. That’s why I said it is a human thing.
For an illustrative example, let’s say somebody who does not know how to tune an instrument – let’s say a guitar, takes upon himself to “tune” somebody’s guitar. And in this attempt to do something nice for somebody (such as tuning the guitar), he pops a string because in their failed attempt to tune instrument overtightened a string past its tensile strength. Sure, it can very well be an honest mistake and no harm was intended. But the damage is done.
But preventing from this string to be popped would have taken some knowledge about understanding the tensile strength of a string, and what frequency (note) is supposed to ring when properly tunned. In other words a process with proper context. Depending on the circumstances a broken guitar string is not quite a big deal, and if somebody has another set of strings it can be replaced quite easily. But what if this happen while a person was in travel and there are no string replacements around?
This guitar-string analogy serves to illustrate how an unintended remark can be perceived by somebody. Sometimes it won’t be worth the drama to even get mad about it, after all guitar strings need to be changed once in a while. But the circumstances will vary on the urgency to address the situation. For example, what if the string was broken just minutes before a performance. Even if you change the string on the spot, guitar strings take a bit of time to settle. In other words you need to retune it a few times before it maintains the correct note for a sustained amount of time. For example a full song.
Similarly with remarks, even if it is addressed on the spot, there is an aftermath that requires to settle the issue. And to be honest, that can be very exhausting. Fortunately, most people in the U.S. are well-rounded enough to understand these subtleties when interacting with other human beings. But there are also a non-insignificant number of people who are oblivious to these, and are often repeated offenders. As I mentioned to you before, I personally had dealt in similar circumstances with a lot of people while in uniform, and well before I was wearing a military uniform.
How does this tie to Affirmative Action?
For better or for worse, the segments of the population are still segregated – despite many herculean efforts to minimize it. It has been minimized for great swats of the population, but it has never been eradicated or fully mitigated. Why? Because people are complex, and the culture is not static – it is dynamic. Things will ebb and flow in our perception of our cultural dynamics.
What Affirmative Action did was allowing for a more equitable starting point for all citizens. Deepening on our socio-economic demographics, some people will be born with a more privileged lifestyle than others. This does not imply that those with a higher privilege have done anything wrong, and that is not what Affirmative Action is intending.
For example if a child parents work in a manner that will provide a better future for their kid than what they (as parents) experienced, then the child is by definition more privileged than the parents. For example, let say that the parents both grew up in a small apartment where they had to share a single room with two siblings and the entire family had to share a single bathroom, but now their child has been afforded their own bedroom with in-suite bathroom. That means that this child has a more privileged level than his/her parents and grandparents. This child’s starting point is already further advanced than were his/her parents had at a similar age. By the way, that is what most parents strive for. I know I did for my child.
When we put this in a larger population context, there is plenty to understand about how people live and were brought up in the environment they called home. True that people from every color skin had some tribulations to go through, but there were some segments of the population that were still further behind because it is based on their generational disenfranchisement. For example, a lot of people who were segregated during the Jim Crow era. And yes, there are a lot of people alive who were very much alive when racial discrimination was legal in the United States of America. Both on a privileged and non-privileged extreme of the equation.
I have actually met a lot of people who grew and lived during the Jim Crow era. In case you are not familiar with what I am referring as the Jim Crow era, this is a dark period of time in U.S. History when black people were considered lesser human than white people and it was illegal for both races to share many common services. For example, black people were not allowed to dine in the same place as white people, or sit in the same part of the bus, use the same restrooms, live in the same neighborhoods. Let alone marry somebody who had a different color skin. And there was a lot of domestic terrorism against black people, which included lynchings. Lynching is a dehumanizing way to kill a human being, for example there were cases where black people were not only beaten up, and hanged, but also castrated or even inserting their own severed genitalia in other orifices (mouth or anus). And yes, some of these dehumanizing spectacles happened in front of cheering crowds (which included children). There are horrific historical photographs depicting as much.
And there were a lot of elected legislators who lobbied against repealing Jim Crow laws. And Jim Crow’s genesis (for the name) was itself a derogatory depiction of black people. Back in those years, even in cartoons the depiction of black people portrayed them as lazy, gullible, uneducated, and dehumanized. And some of those vestigial demeaning tropes endured several decades as “acceptable” in many societies around the world.
I remember even as a kid when they used to play on TV those old cartoons that had those depictions. I always cringed when those came on TV and I would just flip the cannel or turn the TV off. I just hated to see how dehumanized people were being depicted. I was a child, and I did not understand it yet, but now that I know about history, it is clear as day – and thank goodness we have improved, but this dehumanization of other people not been fully eradicated. There are people who still feel superior to others based on very incidental reasons, such as the color of their skin. Some of these levels of discrimination happen under a “safe group” – others are very outspoken about it.
Fast forward a few decades and the gradual improvement of these situations presents a favorable environment for all – on the surface. However, although legalized in a less-obvious manner, certain segments of the populace remain marginalized from that critical “starting point” before they are even able to start to “compete” with the rest of society. In other words, a tilted baseline that is unfavorable to a particular segment of the population makes it a lot harder for that segment to get started, let alone succeed. It is not that people in these segments are any less capable that the rest of the population who were afforded a higher starting point, it is just that they have a different (lower, often much lower) starting point.
Let me illustrate this point with an analogy. Let’s say that a person will be competing in a 400meters sprint race. All competitors will be on the track at a certain time, and when the gun-shot sounds-off they are all supposed to sprint as fast as they can towards the finishing line. Whomever reaches the finishing line faster wins. Simple enough – for that part of the event. That is not the issue, the issue is what happened leading to that event.
Let’s say that a some of the athletes competing in this 400m. sprint get a full night rest, get transported to the event in a comfortable vehicle (not too hot or cold, and in a manner that won’t cramp their joints or mess up their posture), and have enough time to chill and be ready for the race. Which could include a sensible meal and proper hydration, and as they prepare for the race have the right equipment – such as proper shoes and racing attire. Sounds commonsensical, correct? Well, that optimal situation might have not been afforded for everyone. Perhaps not by negligence but due to the circumstances in their environment.
For example, let say that one of those athletes has food insecurity and their nutrition is subpar, or they cannot afford proper footwear (either too loose, too heavy, or too slippery). Maybe they did not get a chance to get enough rest because of several other responsibilities that take their time ahead of the race, maybe fabric for their attire is not very breathable or not properly tailored creating restriction of movement. Maybe they could not afford to get somebody to drive them to the event, and had to walk a significant amount of the route before making it to the track. All these tribulations had to be resolved before they even “start the race.” What are the expected results for this athlete?
Well, it can go one of several ways. The most likely is it that they will not win first place, as they were already fighting a lot more factors other than the actual race. Mathematically it is a lot to identify, deal with, and overcome. Less likely but probable, they might place second or third and still have a medal to show off for their effort and athleticism despite all the handicaps put ahead of their starting point. Or the least likely case, arrive number one despite all obstacles. Surely, the victory would be deservingly celebrated because of the overall achievement despite all odds. And yes, “inspiring” stories like this do pop out from time to time. Maybe not just sports-related, but surely occur. Afterall, these achievements are obviously meritorious.
Now, just for a moment let’s consider what would be the situation if a person was afforded the opportunity to succeed in their own merits by affording them an opportunity to lessen the many handicaps, tribulations, and obstacles they had to face to reach the starting line. Yes, I made that sentence super long for a reason. In other words, leveling the plain-field so they can compete in their merits in their desired field. If you think that is fair, well congratulations you understand the premise of Affirmative Action.
Confused, and in some instances bigoted people think that this leveling the Plainfield for a starting point is akin to give an “advantage” to a minority, or otherwise disenfranchised groups. That is not what it is about, it is about helping those who might not be afforded to arrive at the start-line in the first place. This principle has helped America grow exponentially because it opens the door to talented people from all skin colors and backgrounds to become the person they are meant to be. This does not mean that they are afforded opportunities other people in a more privileged circumstances would not get. And the sad part is that a lot of people with strong platforms tend to spew that kind of misinformation.
Affirmative Action was actually a good thing for our country. This allowed many innovations that took genesis in the minds of a minority to benefit the entire country, and even the world. Do yourself a favor. Just perform a simple search engine search and look for successful minority owned business in the USA and their positive impact. And you can see it for yourself – you don’t have to take my word for it. This goes to imply that anybody regardless of skin color is capable of achieving greatness if given the opportunity. It shows that we are all one race, the human race.
If you forget virtually everything I’ve said in this article, just remember this: Affirmative Action is about affording people from different backgrounds a balanced starting point where everybody gets an opportunity to succeed based on their merits. Not everybody was afforded that opportunity. The SCOTUS ruling is implying that all segments of the population are fully balanced – there is a lot of dissentions of that. I have to admit I agree with the three Supreme Court Justices who distended and voted for keeping Affirmative Action (Justices Sotomayor, Jackson, and Kagan). If I could wave a magic wand, I would wish that Affirmative Action would be re-established once again. Apparently, a big part of the country who understand it also agrees with my sentiment. Thank you for reading this far, I hope this sparks a much-needed conversation. HLC