In a decision that capped off a devastating term, the Supreme Court ruled late last month to overturn race-based affirmative action in a pair of cases brought by Harvard and the University of North Carolina.
The twin judgements, which came down along the court’s ideological lines, upended decades of legal precedent established to take race into account in college admissions, and were widely criticized as dealing a devastating blow to equity in higher education.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, the only Black woman justice in the Court’s history, stated that the court’s conservative majority “detached itself from this country’s actual past and present experiences” in her dissent. “With let-them-eat-cake obliviousness, today, the majority pulls the ripcord and announces ‘colorblindness for all’ by legal fiat,” she wrote. “But deeming race irrelevant in law does not make it so in life.”
Responses to the ruling from civil rights organizations and advocates likewise highlighted that racism is still alive and well in college admissions — and that legacy admissions (the process by which some colleges grant preference in admissions to applicants who have a familial connection to the institution) further perpetuate these racial inequities, and are still quite legal.
The ruling represents a significant setback for future generations of students of color, who remain underrepresented at selective colleges and universities. Research shows that state-level restrictions on race-based affirmative action policies lead to decreased enrollment of students from underrepresented communities, particularly Black, Latine and Indigenous students.
But what does the ruling mean for multiply-marginalized students — queer students of color, and Black and Latine queer students in particular? In addition to facing new hurdles in admissions as a result of the ruling, some worry students of color could face increased discrimination on college campuses — which would likely be compounded for queer and trans students of color. Them sat down with David J. Johns, the Executive Director of the LGBTQ+ civil rights organization National Black Justice Coalition, to discuss the Court’s rulings, what they mean for queer and trans students of color, and what colleges and universities can do to abate their impacts.
Why is this ruling so significant, and why is race-based admissions so important still? Why does an admissions process that doesn’t account for race not work?
It doesn't work if one cares about equity or diversity or strengthening democracy in ways that are consistent with shifts in demographics across the United States. To be more explicit, it doesn't work if your goal is to dismantle white supremacy, or upend the tradition of people who are white, or who have access to the privileges afforded to white people because of phenotype, because of other practices, including legacy and elite sports, or because of legal challenges, like recent twin decisions. I want to be clear that for the federalists on the Supreme Court, as Bryan Stevenson says, their system is working exactly as it's designed to — which is to uphold the privileges associated with white supremacy.
There remain an overwhelming number of post-secondary institutions, alumni or communities, and leaders within the academy — leaders of colleges, universities, educators, people who are part of supporting systems of education, pre-K through postsecondary — who will continue to find ways to fill gaps and remove barriers for students who face challenges that have been erected to no fault of their own. That's always been a part of the legacy of post-secondary opportunities in this country.
It is very saddening and maddening that right wing extremists have won this moment with regard to winning the court. There's so many attacks on our freedom to learn academic freedoms programs designed to facilitate equity and access especially in post secondary spaces. I think the unintended consequences I'm worried most about are members of our community feeling less safe than they should, or being less likely to invite in or otherwise name or disclose parts of their identities.
Do you think that this ruling will reduce the amount of queer students of color at colleges and universities? What does it mean for students who occupy those multiple intersections?
I think that it will suppress the ability for us to accurately count the number of queer students of color and/or Black queer students at post-secondary institutions. What I know is that even before the terms existed or there were policies and practices that supported, named, and or otherwise invested in our communities, we occupied those spaces, and I don't expect that to shift.
What I do expect to change are the numbers of violence and hate crimes and mental health trauma that is recorded at these institutions. I think it'd be harder for organizations like NBJC, the Trevor Project, and GLSEN and researchers to collect data so that we can be more precise in developing policy solutions for minoritized communities. That will become more challenging, especially with the numbers of minoritized communities, which is already a challenge to track. But the core of what I'm trying to say is no, we will continue to show up as we always do, in spite of these rulings, and that will also bring with it other complicating factors.
Do you see this ruling placing a strain on HBCUs and minority-serving institutions?
I think a lot about HBCUs and minority-serving institutions more generally, or Hispanic-serving institutions, tribal colleges and universities, and those that are not designated based on federal law. HBCUs and MSIs have, including before these twin decisions, done a disproportionate amount of the work of providing post-secondary degrees, credentials, and certificates to non-white, non-wealthy, first-generation college students, including older adults who are returning to school after having disruptions. They in this moment will be required to do more with less.
Historically, most of these institutions are funded by states, and there are cases where there are, what one might deem competing institutions, like how Florida A&M University and the University of Florida are literally separated by train tracks. The University of Florida is overwhelmingly white, overwhelmingly funded, and otherwise supported by the state, which enables them to draw down more research dollars and attract more funding and have bigger endowments and enroll more students. And this disparity with regard to support, especially for state-funded HBCUs, has resulted in many of them being forced to close. So as I celebrate the legacy of us figuring it out, in spite of this, it is not without cost.
How do you think that institutions can better support queer students of color, particularly in this moment where they're under attack in so many other ways?
They could resist as educators at every-level are doing throughout the country, as queer educators continue to do especially in the face of “no promo homo” laws, which existed before the most recent spate of anti-LGBTQ bills, including “Don't Say Gay.” The same way library media specialists and librarians are finding ways to share books in spite of bans.
Folks can continue to invest in programs, policies, and practices that allow the most marginalized amongst us and student populations more specifically, to feel seen and safe and supported. [NBJC is] having conversations with institutions, and finding ways to continue to do the work and adapt to the necessary changes given the shifts in law as well as political climates in some spaces like Florida.
And then the last, I think, is to lean in to what students are expressing that they need right now in this moment. I would implore anyone who has the opportunity and or is empowered to create spaces for students, especially marginalized students, to find ways to ask them that question, and to respond with regard to policy and practice and honor what they're saying and to involve them in that process. What we know based on our asking of that question is that a lot of students are expressing the need for mental health support. The suicide rates for Black youth have doubled in the last two decades while decreasing for other communities of children. And we have more data now that says if you're Black and LGBTQ+ — or if people think that you are in educational settings — those rates are exacerbated. And folks who are interested in finding access to high quality, competent mental health are finding it challenging to do so. I would name that as a primary solution for anyone seeking to be supportive.
What does this ruling mean for the state of the Supreme Court, and for the larger political climate around queer rights?
With regard to the Supreme Court and the system that underpins it, it should be clear to everyone that nothing is sacred. There's not a right that is off the table. We’re living in a world where so many rights that have been fought for have been the result of needing to codify protections for people who are not white, cis, presumably heterosexual, able-bodied men. What additional complications might be presented from moving through the world or loving the person that you love, or finding ways to thrive in the body that you didn't ask to be born into? So, yeah, all of it's up for grabs.
I think a lot about young people. I taught kindergarten, third grade, and college. It's not lost on me that in spite of the geopolitical climate, there are grown ass adults who are political bullies — folks like the lieutenant governor of North Carolina, who stood in the pulpit of a Black church, and called queer kids garbage or trash or something like it. Think about all the things that he-who-shall-not-be-named in Florida has said about our community, think about Texas and all of the other states restricting access to gender-affirming care and criminalizing the provision of the kind of care that we need in order to exist.
In spite of that, the CDC found that more students now identify as anything other than strictly heterosexual. And what I know is that that's not an indication of the heterosexual agenda crumbling — it is an acknowledgment that young people know that these binaries and boxes and systems and laws designed to preserve privilege do not benefit the greatest number of us. My hope is that people who can't appreciate the ways that trans and non-binary folks get us closer to freedom will be moved by young people who didn't ask to deal with any of this shit, and to at a minimum, ensure that there are elected officials who care about them making decisions during this upcoming election cycle.
Get the best of what’s queer. Sign up for Them’s weekly newsletter here.
