Approaching the end of their session, the US Supreme Court this week is handing down rapid fire judgment on a number of controversial court cases.
On Monday, June 24th 2013. In a 7-1 vote, The US Supreme Court decided to kick back the case against affirmative action policies for college admissions to the US Court of Appeals. In a previous ruling, the lower court sided with the University of Texas, keeping the affirmative action policies in place. While I consider this to be a win for equality and non discrimination, the Court's reaction to this case fills me with dread. Like a warning shot, the reaction to this case, not to mention public opinion, has made ANY affirmative action policy more skeptical. Thereby adding to the scrutiny of colleges and universities for their Affirmative action policies regarding admissions.
College admissions work on a point system. An applicant gets a certain number of points for GPA, for extracurricular activities (e.g. sports and academic clubs etc.) for race (ala affirmative action), low income, and for family connections (Ever wonder why the application asks if you ever had a family member attend the school?). The points are added together and the higher the total points, the more attractive the applicant looks to the school.
The issue, that few people realize, is that the points aren't allocated evenly. A person who has a family member who completed a degree at the school, and/or has a family member that is an active (giving money) alumni are given more points. In fact, those points are MORE than the points allocated for Affirmative action (i.e. race). Even though black and Hispanic/latino students still make up only 13 percent of students at highly selective universities (like the University of Texas), white students with lower test scores are twice as likely to be admitted into some of the same schools. These are examples of white privilege.
White Privilege is the systemic validation of the white-angelo culture and whiteness; resulting in greater access to opportunities and availability of resources for people who are white. In our US social structure, white privilege has become normalized. This is privilege is fueled by racial and cultural stereotypes that expect whites to do better than people of color. Therefore, when some young, fairly bright white girl doesn't get into her first choice of colleges, everyone cries "foul", and blames social policies that assist people of color. Why? Because, Affirmative Action policies are the only way that people of color can EVER out perform whites in the mind of its detractors. Equally ludicrous is the idea that these policies give black and brown folks privilege above those who are white. This idea is common in a "colorblind" society like the United States.
"Colorblindness" (i.e. not seeing skin color) is a term that is often used by the white majority to identify their experience with people of color. The idea is that by being colorblind, people are treating everyone the same. The result is however, that people of color are then evaluated by white standards of access to available resources, and opportunities. Thus, if a person of color doesn't "measure up", it's the individual's fault (because "everyone is equal"). The reality is that skin color matters (some examples I have mentioned above), and because it matters, any person, structure or institution, that denies this is ignoring the history and current experience of people of color, and oblivious to their own privilege like Abigail Fisher.
On Tuesday, June 25th 2013, in a 5-4 vote, The US Supreme Court struck down Section 4 of The Voting Rights Act of 1965.(VRA) Section 4 pertains to coverage jurisdictions under the VRA and how those jurisdictions qualify for coverage. In the ruling, The US Supreme Court decided that the formula used to determine the covered jurisdictions is outdated, and unconstitutional. The US Supreme Court will allow Congress to come up with a new formula; but considering that the current Congress has a history of being deadlocked (unless they are faced with upsetting the travel plans of the rich white elite) this will inevitably make Section 5 of the VRA (that any covered jurisdiction must get federal approval before making changes to voting practices) toothless.
The repercussions of this could be vast and widespread. Section 5 was used late last year to strike down mandatory voter ID cards from going into immediate effect. Without it, states could not only implement harsher ID requirements, but also redistrict and reset polling places without federal approval, resulting in the increased voter suppression of the poor and people of color.
The US Supreme Court, in their ruling, emphasized that while Section 4 of the VRA is unconstitutional and Section 5 is worthless, Section 2 (that protects against discrimination and ensures the right to vote) is still in place. By this statement it is obvious that the US Supreme Court ( at least 5 of them anyway) do not see how these two things are connected, especially when talking about the poor and people of color. Under the new rules while people of color and the poor still have the right to vote, how can they exercise that right if they have to travel long distances (a lot of times with out a car), wait in long lines, give up a days wage, find a babysitter, and have the proper ID? This is, yet again, another form of covert structural racism. The more difficult you make it for people to vote, the less likely those people are to vote again. This is not only invalidating the voices of the poor and the equally disenfranchised, but allowing policy decisions to be made by the elite few. Thus, our so called "republic" has been transformed into a financial oligarchy.
Part 2 coming soon...
