Back to Separate and Unequal

Odds are you have never heard of Edward Blum.  You should pay attention.  He recruits surrogates to stand in the spotlight as he pulls the puppet strings.  Blum has arguably done more to inhibit racial justice than any other person in the United States. 

Blum was behind two Supreme Court cases known as Fisher I and Fisher II.  These cases claimed that (white) Abigail Fisher lost a coveted spot at the University of Texas because affirmative action gave her rightful place to a less qualified Black applicant.   

After losing these cases Blum created the populist-appearing, authoritative-sounding  Students for Fair Admissions.  At that time it had three members; Edward Blum, Abigail Fisher, and Abigail’s father.  He recruited them to represent his ugly and tenacious campaign to undo any and every initiative  aimed at racial justice.  

Although the evidence is circumstantial, it appears that he was motivated by losing a congressional election in the early 1990s.  He claimed that his loss was due to redistricting that favored African-American and Latinx voters.  

Just another beleaguered white man trying to make his way in a world stacked against him.

His latest puppet show is a lawsuit claiming that Harvard University discriminates against Asian-American applicants because of the University’s race conscious admission practices.  “That Harvard engages in racial balancing and ignores race-neutral alternatives … proves that Harvard does not use race as a last resort.”  

It is not that deeply wounded Asian-American students sought him out to get redress for the harm they suffered.  As in the Fisher cases, he found them.  In a speech after losing in Fisher, he said, “. . . I need Asian plaintiffs.”  

If you can’t win with a sympathetic white “victim,” try a few Asian-Americans.  I don’t mean to suggest that no Asian-Americans feel that an injustice was done when they were not admitted to Harvard.  95% of Harvard’s applicants feel injustice, but Blum doesn’t care about any of them.  It appears that he just wants to get even because he thinks racial considerations derailed his political ambitions.  

He lost in lower courts, based on existing precedent in the Grutter v. Bollinger ruling, wherein the court upheld the consideration of race in University of Michigan Law School admissions. The appeal was filed by Students for Fair Admissions.  This week the court agreed to hear arguments in the case.    

Grutter is almost certain to be overruled based on the courts current conservative majority.  The case has been joined with a similar case against the University of North Carolina.  The near certain overturning of Grutter will effectively end affirmative action in the United States.

The most crucial issue is never addressed. Higher education is being hoist on its own petard.  The Asian-Americans in the most recent case argue that they merited admission by virtue of their superior credentials – primarily grade point averages and SAT scores.   Opponents of affirmative action have always cited the inviolability of meritocracy (although they are willfully blind to athletic preference, legacy admissions and the influence of donors).  Of course in contemporary society, athletic prowess, pedigree and money are indicators of de-facto merit.    Being Black is a de-facto demerit.

It is this false understanding of merit that will be the undoing of affirmative action. Our culture stipulates that merit is accurately assessed through standardized exams and quantified performance in school.  Colleges affirm this not only by admitting students primarily on these criteria but by publishing and boasting about their superior metrics.

Thereby, colleges are explicitly or implicitly conceding that applicants who are admitted under diversity or affirmative action programs are somehow “lesser.” They may be lovely people, good additions to the campus community to be sure, and have valuable contributions to make - but fundamentally “lesser.”

But true human merit is more complex. It includes: the ability to create and recognize beauty; the capacity for eccentric thought that sees beyond conventional wisdom; the interpersonal intelligence to understand human nature and be filled with empathy; the life experiences a person can bring to examinations of history and literature; a passion for justice; a deep and powerful inclination to love.

In my book, First Do No Harm: Progressive Education in a Time of Existential Risk, I provide a well-supported argument that the processes that produce high grades and test scores actually erode critical capacities, curiosity and passion.    Over the years I’ve spoken with scores of faculty members at Dartmouth College and other Ivies who bemoan the highly stressed, incurious, unhappy students spit out by the vicious chase for perfection.  Colleges who use standardized scores and grade point averages as gatekeeping criteria are actually limiting the overall vibrancy of their institutions.

Admission of students of color as belated recompense for America’s original, ongoing sin is important.  And educational institutions do benefit from a diverse community.   But until and unless universities and society recalibrate the idea of merit, race conscious and holistic admission policies will be challenged in the courts and the court of public opinion. 

If you have the time and stomach for it, read the amicus briefs in support of Blum’s petition to the court.  Several briefs suggest that affirmative action has increased racial tension.  Well, duh.  When colleges admit students of color they do little to support them and find that they are not just grateful and compliant.  That is an argument for greater diversity, not less.  

The briefs are a collection of the same conservative tripe that has states and school boards shutting down diversity programs, banning the 1619 Project curriculum and claiming that anti-racism is racism.  The most disturbing laws empower parents to report any anti-racist teacher, who may be fired or fined.

Many of the gains for students of color in education are about to be wiped out in one fell swoop. From the 1970s through the 90s, opportunities for Black students increased dramatically, due in large part to affirmative action.  Backlash slowed and eventually reversed the progress.  Now we are headed back to a new dedication to separate and unequal.  

And, of course, teaching this truth to students is now sanctionable.  You can thank Edward Blum.