From courtroom to classroom: An examination of affirmative action’s implications

Andrea Libresco (left) and Kashmiraa Pandit (right) discuss the implications of affirmative action on reace-conscious admissions policies. // Photo Courtesy of Molly Botros

On Tuesday, Oct. 10, Hofstra University hosted a one-day symposium entitled “Affirmative Action: The Road Ahead.” This symposium discussed the aftermath of the Supreme Court’s landmark decisions in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard and Students for Fair Admissions v. University of North Carolina. The Office of Equity and Inclusion organized the event alongside the Kalikow School of Government, the public policy and international affairs’ public policy and public service program, the Hofstra Cultural Center, the Maurice A. Deane School of Law, the Division of Student Enrollment, Engagement, and Success, and the Center for “Race,” Culture and Social Justice.

The symposium opened with introductions by discussion leaders Andrea S. Libresco, a professor of teaching, learning and technology, and Kashmiraa Pandit, a senior political science major. Afterward, the audience was allowed to comment on the divisive perspectives on affirmative action presented in the film “The Diversity Dilemma” by CBS Reports.

Libresco began the discussion by asking the audience to consider the varying ways in which universities are still permitted to have special selection criteria. “Currently, a lot of universities give special rounds to athletes and legacies,” Libresco said. “So [universities] give special rounds to some things; there is no doubt about that. The question is, should they have special rounds for anything, for nothing, for race, not for race, [for] gender? What kinds of things are worth doing special rounds for?”

In response, audience members shared their opinion that those backgrounds, such as legacy status and racial identity, should not be considered in college admissions. However, they believed that there should be a distinction between gaining an admission advantage due to background versus an advantage for those with special talents, such as athletes and musicians.

Later in the discussion, the audience echoed the sentiment that if the United States decides to be a meritocracy, then there should be state resources to remediate the financial discrepancies between students and provide some students educational advantages.

“[In the wake of the Supreme Court decision], the only place that kids can [express racial inequalities] is their college essay, where they can talk about whatever hardships or blockades have been put in front of them and the extent to which they are trying to get over them,” Libresco said. “What’s weird about that to me is that all those people who said, ‘Let’s not talk about race,’ are now making kids talk about race.”

Further discussion centered around the film. The discussion specifically focused on a statement made in the film by Gail Heriot, a professor of law at the University of San Diego School of Law. According to members of the panel and the audience, Heriot contradicted herself when she stated, “Of course we want programs that will benefit people who are at a genuine disadvantage – just don’t define disadvantage in terms of race, sex, ethnicity, national origin.”

Aisha Wilson-Carter, the associate director of equity and inclusion, said, “To me, I almost laugh because that is how we have historically disadvantaged the people . . . But now, we are not allowed to have restorative justice based on those same things that they have been oppressed by.”

Toward the end of the event, Libresco reminded everyone that the decision to end affirmative action was made by six individuals within the Supreme Court.

“The Supreme Court is forever … When you are voting for president, you are voting for the Supreme Court; when you are voting for the Senate, you are voting for the Supreme Court,” Libresco said. “That is a really important thing to think about when we are a year away from the election.”

Libresco’s statement highlighted the importance of the upcoming election and sparked interest among students.

“I should be able to trust the Supreme Court whether or not I agree with the decision,” said Josh Platte, a junior public policy and public service major. “I think the problem is that we do not have that trust. Regardless of what the issue is, we need to confront that.”

“Including public opinions in the consideration of a decision, to a degree, [should be] essential to forming [SCOTUS] decisions,” Pandit said.