In a very close decision, The Supreme Court upheld affirmative action. Abigail Noel Fisher brought the case to court after she was denied admission to the University of Texas. In a 4-3 decision, the court ruled in favor of the University of Texas.

This ruling justified affirmative action with the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution. In the written decision, the Supreme Court Justices specified that there can be no quotas used in the affirmative action process. This means that a university cannot reserve a specific number of places in an admitted class for applicants of a certain race. Instead, race can be used as a quality for consideration in a holistic application, including community service, extracurriculars, and many other aspects that have become commonplace in college applications. Similarly, race cannot be the sole factor in any decision.

The University of Texas made their goals for affirmative action very clear; the university aimed to use affirmative action in: “ending stereotypes, promoting “cross-racial understanding,” preparing students for “an increasingly diverse workforce and society,” and cultivating leaders with “legitimacy in the eyes of the citizenry”. The university had considered race neutral programs, though continued affirmative action when their goals were not met via race neutral considerations.

Fisher’s case argues that there were other means to achieve those goals, though ultimately, the Justices agreed that those measures were not realistic nor effective enough to replace affirmative action.

In many cases throughout history, affirmative action has been praised as fostering diversity, though who does that benefit? Of course, diversity can and will benefit anyone involved, though why do many white students hold it so personally. Diversity in higher education is a necessity for those that are at systemic disadvantages, though for those that benefit from many systemic inequalities, including myself, we advocate it personally. Programs like affirmative action exist in attempts to correct past transgressions against targeted groups, so why do typically privileged groups find so many ways in which these programs benefit themselves?

I do not mean to belittle the benefits of diversity; obviously a diverse crowd creates a fuller conversation and a homogenous group will miss the great ideas others have to offer, but why does this matter? Do typically privileged groups rely on the ways they will be benefitted by affirmative action to support it? As published in the 2013 Harvard Law Review: “White people reap the stated benefits of nonwhite presence in institutions, such as exposure to new ideas and understanding of other cultures. Indeed, some critics have argued that, within an institution, white people benefit more from the effects of diversity that nonwhite people.” Since affirmative action has, once again, been defended by the Supreme Court, the question becomes how can affirmative action better serve those commonly at a systematic disadvantage?

Secondly, how can affirmative action be empowering to students without inflating the role of administrators? In order to act on affirmative action powerful administrators must determine the value of whiteness or nonwhiteness. Typically privileged higher ups are tasked with considering race with no responsibility to anyone other than themselves. Though created to help reduce inequality and provide reparations, affirmative action often gives the power of determining the value and details of race to those that have not met racial inequality. Admission officers have a great deal of power over applicants, how can race be used in consideration without turning it into a form of capital? What oversight or transparency can be implemented to prevent administrators from exploiting nonwhiteness for statistical gain?

It is impossible to fix systemic inequality with affirmative action, though considering race in college admissions or job applications can reinforce the idea that privileged groups must benefit from equality programs for them to be worthy. As executed here, affirmative action takes the power of racial identity away from individuals and gives it to those who exist to make their university or company look inclusive. Diversity has become a currency in the social economy and in capitalism. What Supreme Court case can challenge these structures and truly tackle systemic inequality?