The aftermath of US Supreme Court's ruling against affirmative action

In a significant ruling on June 29 2023, the US Supreme Court reshaped the future for historically disadvantaged minority groups. With a 6-3 majority vote, the conservative-leaning Court took a decisive step against race-conscious admission programs in higher education.

This ruling, known as Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College, marked the end of considering a student's race during college admissions.

It's important to note that this practice falls under the broad term of affirmative action, which encompasses various admission policies.

However, the Supreme Court's decision specifically targeted race-based affirmative action, leaving other components like athletic recruitment or early admission policies untouched, even though they also fall under the umbrella of affirmative action and disproportionately benefit white students.

While factors like wealth, power, or privilege may still be considered justifiable forms of affirmative action, the Supreme Court's ruling unequivocally excludes the use of race as a criterion. The Court cites this exclusion as a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Looking ahead, although the Court's ruling doesn't directly impact private-sector employment, it poses potential implications for policies, programs, and practices developed by employers to promote diversity, equity, and inclusion.

Already, several instances have emerged illustrating that the consequences of this decision extend beyond college campuses. It affects various aspects of minority lives, encompassing education, job opportunities, and corporate diversity programs.

Eroding diversity in education

Affirmative action policies have long been seen as a means to address racial disparities and promote inclusivity on college campuses.

Critics argue that these policies have shown tangible benefits by not only increasing the representation of Black, Hispanic, and Native American students but also fostering cultural awareness and understanding.

The Supreme Court's decision raises concerns that this progress could be reversed. Experts predict a decline in the enrollment of minority students in selective institutions where affirmative action is banned.

For example, California has already experienced a significant drop in Black and Hispanic enrollment following a state ban on race-based admissions policies.

This decline threatens to limit educational opportunities for these communities and hinder their ability to access better job prospects, homes, and generational wealth.

Implications for the private sector

The Supreme Court's ruling has also reverberated through the private sector.

One of the first casualties is the Small Business Administration's Business Development program, designed to provide opportunities for historically disadvantaged groups to access government contracting budgets.

However, a federal judge's ruling in Tennessee struck down a provision of the program that equated race with social disadvantage. This decision has left thousands of Black, Latino, and other minority business owners scrambling to prove their social disadvantage.

Under the new guidelines, being Black, Hispanic, Asian, or Native American is no longer enough to automatically qualify as socially disadvantaged — a key step in making it into the program. Instead, business owners were instructed to submit an essay demonstrating that race had hindered their success.

Reverse-discrimination lawsuits

Moreover, the Court’s ruling has prompted an increase in litigation targeting corporate Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) programs and a surge in "reverse discrimination" lawsuits.

The American Alliance for Equal Rights, for example, is overseen by Edward Blum, a 71-year-old conservative legal strategist who has sought to challenge racial preferences through litigation.

He was the driving force behind the twin Supreme Court cases challenging colleges' consideration of race in admissions. Now, Blum is suing two law firms, Perkins Coie and Morrison & Foerster, for their diversity fellowships, alleging racial bias.

Lawsuits against these companies allege that diversity fellowships have excluded certain applicants based on their race and ethnicity.

The legal field is among the least diverse professions, according to the US Bureau of Labor Statistics. Last year, 9 percent of legal workers were Black, 5 percent Asian, and 11 percent Hispanic or Latino, while 84 percent were White.

This underrepresentation means that minorities are left behind, as 13.6 percent of Americans identified as Black, 19.1 percent as Hispanic or Latino, and 6.3 percent as Asian, according to the US Census Bureau. Meanwhile, 75.5 percent identified as White, with 58.9 percent stating they were White alone and not Hispanic or Latino.

In the landscape shaped by a conservative-majority Supreme Court decision seemingly at odds with the interests of minority groups, these law firms' diversity fellowships stand as modest yet crucial initiatives. They underscore the significance of fostering genuine diversity within the legal profession, especially during a time when the very ideals of equity and inclusion are being questioned.

Blum's legal pursuits don't stop at law firms' diversity fellowships. He has filed a lawsuit against the Fearless Fund, alleging violations of Section 1981 of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 by making only Black women eligible in a grant competition.

Fearless Fund, launched in 2019 by prominent Black women to provide venture capital to women entrepreneurs of colour. Statistics show that although women entrepreneurs of colour have been founding companies at four times the rate of the overall population, only 0.1 percent of venture capital funds went to Black and Latino women founders last year.

But Blum hasn’t been the only one waging war against diversity and inclusion efforts.

Another conservative activist group known as the America First Legal Foundation, under the oversight of former Trump administration speechwriter Stephen Miller, filed a lawsuit against Amazon. This legal action represents a Texas woman's claim that the company engages in discrimination against white entrepreneurs when it comes to startup grants.

Furthermore, the group has initiated legal proceedings against Kellogg’s, challenging the company's diversity programs.

Starbucks is yet another company facing legal action from a conservative think tank, the National Center for Public Policy Research that believes the coffee chain’s efforts to promote diversity amount to racial discrimination. According to the complaint, this diversity drive allows the company to present itself as a virtuous proponent of 'Inclusion, Diversity, and Equity,' while simultaneously inflicting harm on the company and its owners."

A potential decline in the number of Black leaders

Critics argue that the Supreme Court's decision could have more profound consequences, potentially leading to a decline in the number of Black leaders across various sectors.

The end of affirmative action, as it has existed, threatens to cut off pathways to higher education and better job opportunities for minority communities, potentially perpetuating systemic inequalities that have persisted for centuries.

As the United States grapples with the aftermath of this landmark decision, the impact on minorities in education, economic opportunities, and diversity initiatives remains a topic of intense debate and concern. The nation stands at a pivotal crossroads in its ongoing struggle for racial equity and justice, with the consequences of the Supreme Court's ruling yet to fully unfold.