Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Criticized for Comments Supporting Affirmative Action

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. visits the set of "The Faulkner Focus" at Fox News Channel Studios in New York City on June 2, 2023. Jamie McCarthy/Getty Images

Democrat presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s critical take on the Supreme Court decision to end affirmative action policies and bar schools from applying race-based criteria to admissions has faced an outpouring of criticism online.

The Supreme Court’s 6–3 decision on June 29 revived a strict interpretation of the 14th Amendment to make clear that equal treatment under the law bars discrimination based on race, even when that discrimination gives a leg up to groups considered “marginalized” or “underrepresented” in public life in some respect.

Some, like former President Donald Trump, hailed the decision as a step toward a race-blind, merit-based system of college admissions that prevents discrimination against those with extraordinary abilities.

“It will also keep us competitive with the rest of the world,” Trump wrote in a statement posted on Truth Social, in which the former president argued that color-blind admission policies would help the country as a whole, as those who are the most talented and hard-working will have a less constrained path toward success.

Others, like Kennedy, lamented the high court’s move as a step back while arguing for the use of race-based policies to “undo the effect of racist policies.”

“I know many Americans feel that purely race-based decisions are unfair. However, this feeling misses important context. The effects of racist policies going back centuries are now self-perpetuating,” Kennedy wrote in a series of posts on Twitter.

The presidential hopeful continued his missive by laying out the argument that color-blind admissions standards protect those who are “already in the circle of privilege” and that race-based policies are an appropriate measure to elevate those who have been marginalized.

Merit-based admissions favor “those who grew up in affluent, educated households,” Kennedy wrote, adding, “Wouldn’t you like to invite in those who have been left out in the cold?”

Kennedy’s take drew a flurry of critical responses on Twitter, including from large accounts with hundreds of thousands of followers.

‘Laws Should Not Favor Anyone’

Neuroscientist Dr. Debra Soh, author of the bestselling book “The End of Gender,” was one of those who pushed back on the view that race-based admissions criteria would fight racism.

“I respect much of your work but the solution to racism in the past isn’t MORE racism,” Soh wrote in a tweet.

“It’s a myth that the Asian and white students being discriminated against are ‘privileged,’” added Soh, who has over 250,000 followers on Twitter.

Emmanuel Rincon, writer and founder of political consultancy Regional Renaissance Consulting, took a similarly dim view of Kennedy’s remarks.

“I disagree with you on this. The victimization and elimination of meritocracy drives down any society. I am Hispanic, a migrant, and I don’t want any special treatment from any institution. Laws should not favor anyone,” Rincon posted in a tweet to his over 236,000 followers on Twitter.

“Horrible take - the solution to systemic racism is not more systemic racism,” an account called The Rabbit Hole wrote in a post on Twitter to its 391,000 followers.

Psychology professor Geoffrey Miller, who has over 130,000 followers, responded to Kennedy’s post by remarking that “This tweet just cost you the support [of] every principled, centrist American who thought you were kinda cool last week.”

The Hodgetwins, a stand-up comedy and conservative political commentary duo with over 2 million followers on Twitter, posted a tweet that simply said, “BAD BAD take.”

While legal experts say the implications of the Supreme Court’s 237-page decision are not yet fully clear, it appears that the ruling will force colleges and universities to find other ways to meet their “diversity” objectives besides race-based admissions.

The Epoch Times reached out to Kennedy’s campaign for comment.

Continued Focus on Diversity

The Supreme Court’s decision ostensibly ends the use of affirmative action programs in higher education, a longtime goal of conservatives and others who favor merit-based standards.

Chief Justice John Roberts wrote (pdf) for the court that universities have for too long “concluded, wrongly, that the touchstone of an individual’s identity is not challenges bested, skills built, or lessons learned but the color of their skin.”

“Our constitutional history does not tolerate that choice,” he wrote.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissented, writing that the majority decision “rolls back decades of precedent and momentous progress.”

“It holds that race can no longer be used in a limited way in college admissions to achieve such critical benefits,” Sotomayor wrote. “In so holding, the Court cements a superficial rule of colorblindness as a constitutional principle in an endemically segregated society where race has always mattered and continues to matter.”

Harvard issued a statement on the ruling saying that it would comply but that it continues to see the value of pursuing diversity.

“We write today to reaffirm the fundamental principle that deep and transformative teaching, learning, and research depend upon a community comprising people of many backgrounds, perspectives, and lived experiences,” Harvard said in a June 29 statement.

“That principle is as true and important today as it was yesterday. So too are the abiding values that have enabled us—and every great educational institution—to pursue the high calling of educating creative thinkers and bold leaders, of deepening human knowledge, and of promoting progress, justice, and human flourishing,” the statement added.

Some States Already Prohibit Affirmative Action

California outlawed affirmative action in a 1996 ballot initiative, and it’s one of several states with laws prohibiting the practice.

Chancellors for the University of California (UC) expressed their support for Harvard’s race-based admissions programs in an amicus brief (pdf) submitted to the Supreme Court. They highlighted that despite years of developing alternative race-neutral policies, these efforts have not been successful.

“Those programs have enabled UC to make significant gains in its system-wide diversity,” the brief states. “Yet despite its extensive efforts, UC struggles to enroll a student body that is sufficiently racially diverse to attain the educational benefits of diversity.”

The brief said that a quarter-century after race-based admissions were banned at public universities, UC has been unable to meet its diversity goals despite spending over half a billion dollars on outreach programs to encourage more students from “underrepresented minority groups.”

The case the Supreme Court ruled on was actually two separate appeals that were heard together: Students for Fair Admissions Inc. (SFFA) v. President and Fellows of Harvard College, court file 20-1199, and SFFA v. University of North Carolina (UNC), court file 21-707.

Lawrence Wilson contributed to this report.