The U.S. Supreme Court’s recent ruling to strike down race-based admissions policies at U.S. colleges—also referred to as affirmative action policies—shows that Americans should be treated based on their character and their personal responsibility, not their race, according to two advocates who praised the decision.
“This means that Americans can rest easy knowing that they will be treated based on the content of their character, not the color of their skin at a critical time of their life, which is college admissions,” Xu said.
“At least they will know that their race cannot play a factor for or against them, which is something they can’t control.”
Response to Harvard’s Statement
When asked about Harvard’s statement, which said it would comply with the high court’s ruling—including that colleges and universities “may consider in admissions decisions ‘an applicant’s discussion of how race affected his or her life, be it through discrimination, inspiration, or otherwise’”—Xu said he believes Harvard’s statement is “totally arrogant” and is “based on a misreading of the text.”“If you actually look at the decision, Justice John Roberts specifically wrote [that] colleges cannot use race directly or indirectly in their decision [to admit students],” Xu said. “[Roberts] even said [that] an individual can write about his or her race or her experience with racial discrimination, but a college cannot use that experience as a justification for preferential treatment over another person who chose not to bring about the racial discrimination ... So whatever Harvard chooses to do, they have to comply with the court’s ruling.”
Xu added: “[Justice] Roberts ruled that you have to judge a person’s experience as a individual. That means that [if] they write about the racial discrimination, fine, but you have to judge it on the quality of their writing. You cannot say, ‘They wrote about the racial discrimination, therefore, I’m going to give them a bonus;’ you cannot do that. If Harvard tries to do that, they’re in the wrong, and they should be sued for that.”
Ruling Ends Presumption that Black Americans Are ‘Intellectually Inferior’: Former Civil Rights Activist
Bob Woodson—a former civil rights activist and the founder and president of the Woodson Center, a nonprofit dedicated to help residents of low-income neighborhoods—shared with American Thought Leaders about why he felt “absolutely delighted with the court’s ruling.”“[The ruling] ends the presumption that black America is intellectually inferior, and therefore can only achieve and advance if special privileges are extended to us,” he said. “I’m really glad that it ends this presumption of incompetence and it will go back to the whole issue of equality of opportunity.”
“Affirmative action is part of the whole race grievance narrative. The assumption is that in order for blacks to achieve, then we must dumb down the entry standards,” he said.
Contrary to the intention that affirmative action would help black Americans, it has generally achieved the opposite, Woodson said. “Whenever you generalize about a group and then try to apply remedies to that group, it always helps those at the top at the expense of those at the bottom,” he said.
Historically, set-aside government programs, which require an allocation of positions to be reserved for underrepresented groups, have taken the place of discipline and hard work, which has harmed black communities, Woodson said.
Personal Responsibility
When asked about how universities now appear to suggest they may try to work around the court’s ruling to still apply affirmative action policies, Woodson said doing so would be akin to “continuing to injure with the helping hand.”“I think old fashioned bigotry is healthier than a patronizing hand of whites who think they can help blacks, by doing things for them that they refuse to do for themselves,” he said.
“I would rather be hated than patronized. Bigotry is external, patronization is internal. There are two ways that you can prevent someone from competing. The first one is to deny them by law, which we used to do under Jim Crow. The latter is much more insidious, is to tell people ‘because of your history, you don’t have to compete, all you got to do is show up, you don’t have to work hard.’ In fact, we are not permitted to discuss personal responsibility.”
“‘Oh, you’re blaming the victim’—but it was personal responsibility, hard work, our religious faith, our commitment to the nuclear family; all of these serve to protect the black community during the times of slavery, and Jim Crow,” Woodson said.
“And yet, in the last 50 years, we’ve got more blacks killing other blacks in one year than the Klan killed in 50 years. Tell me how affirmative action and these kinds of patronizing programs are going to address that crisis?”
In place of affirmative action policies, Woodson shared examples of community groups that have been working to provide disadvantaged Americans, including black Americans, with mentoring and opportunities, and suggested that universities and colleges could look into supporting or starting similar initiatives to help build resilience and perseverance for those who are disadvantaged.
Meritocracy
Xu said he opposes both affirmative action as well as legacy admissions, which is the practice of favoring applicants with family ties to alumni. “I oppose any kind of process or system that tries to degrade us from the principle of merit that our country was built upon, were founded upon excellence.“That’s what the American dream is. Many immigrants come to this country believing that they will not be judged based on their background but on the content of their character, not the color of their skin—that is a universal Maxim with which we should be striving to.”
Based on data from the Students for Fair Admissions, an Asian American has to score 273 points higher on the SATs to have a similar chance of admission as a black person, which means that the standard has been lowered for black applicants, Xu said.
The Supreme Court’s ruling “will help black students,” he added. “I think people are really up in arms about this: ‘It’s going to lower the percentage of black kids at Harvard.’ Okay, so you go to a school in which you’re better matched academically, where you can actually graduate at the top 25 percent, or you don’t have to worry about being called an ‘affirmative action graduate.’
“Sometimes that’s a better fit ... affirmative action, all it does is it mismatches kids into places where[as] they could thrive in another school. It’s not about the prestige of your school. Most educators, even on the left, know that it’s about what you do with it.”
Xu spoke in strong favor of meritocracy. “Meritocracy is an idea that the left inherently dislikes because it implies unequal outcomes are justified, but it’s the way humanity and human nature works.
“Asians choose to focus on academics, some people choose to focus on sports, some people choose to focus on art, some people choose to focus on business. But you should allow people to receive the rewards in their efforts wherever it goes. That’s what meritocracy is,” he said.
