On June 29, 2023, a group of nine adults, averaging 63 years of age, gathered and reached a controversial consensus that would impact the lives of people 40 years younger than themselves. 

The Supreme Court’s decisions in Students for Fair Admissions v. President and Fellows of Harvard College and Students for Fair Admissions v. University of North Carolina mean that future Black and Latinx college applicants will see their chances at college admission plummet anywhere from 25% to 65%. This is a decision with ramifications that will fall on the shoulders of future generations of students of color pursuing higher education. 

Affirmative action has been permissible in college admissions since the Supreme Court’s 1978 ruling in Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, yet this decades-long precedent was erased in a largely misguided argument. This summer’s Supreme Court decisions emerged from the misguided misconception that affirmative action disenfranchises seemingly more qualified white and Asian-American applicants to prioritize access to higher education for Black and Latinx students.

The opinion of the Supreme Court suggests that race-conscious admissions judge applicants based solely on their race and that of their ancestors, rather than by their own achievements and merit. 

This blatantly disregards the privilege granted to white and Asian-American applicants through the system that not only works in their favor, but has, historically, worked to deny students of color access to quality higher education. 

The framework for affirmative action was established in 1965 to bring equality to the labor force for people of color. A study conducted in New Jersey found that the average Black and Latinx student attends school in a district spending over $1,500 below the per student Adequacy Spending Target. All the while, their white peers, who are more likely to be wealthier and in possession of “cultural capital,” have access to numerous advantages in the college admissions process, such as extensive standardized testing preparation and private college counselors. 

Although the provisions of affirmative action may fail to encapsulate the circumstances of every student, its policies have been crucial in remedying the inequities present in college admissions. Since its inception, affirmative action has not only been an engine for increasing racial diversity on college campuses, but has also sought to provide an invaluable diversity in perspectives, beliefs and ideas that may not be present in academia otherwise. 

Studies conducted at Georgetown University by the Center on Education and the Workforce have shown that removing racial considerations from the college admissions process would decrease the ethnic diversity of students at the most selective schools in the country. In fact, the study concluded that there was “no good substitute for the consideration of race” in attempts to equalize college accessibility across racial, ethnic and socioeconomic groups. 

The Supreme Court’s decision to rule affirmative action unconstitutional is a direct affront to diversity in higher education. Affirmative action did not cure the diversity problem facing American universities, but it provided a launch pad for progress. 

Some minority groups — particularly Black and Latinx students — are still underrepresented in the nation’s top universities. This underrepresentation will only increase after the fall of affirmative action. When affirmative action was banned for the first time in 1998 in the University of California (UC) system, UC Los Angeles and UC Berkeley saw 43% and 66% decreases, respectively, in the number of Black first-year students admitted. 

The nation’s highest court has now created yet another hoop for students of color to jump through in our pursuit of equal access to higher education. The Supreme Court’s ruling will set a precedent that will be difficult — if not impossible — to reverse. Like many students across the country, I worry that the statement made by this ruling could lead to increased efforts to remove various resources that have been previously available to Black and Latinx students, such as race-conscious scholarships and grants. 

Despite the Supreme Court’s ruling, I remain hopeful that current and future Black and Latinx students will remain steadfast in their pursuit of higher education.

In light of the news, University President John J. DeGioia (CAS ’79, GRD ’95) issued a statement reaffirming the university’s commitment to increasing the diversity of the student body. DeGioia acknowledged that the diversity of perspectives, backgrounds and experiences that affirmative action aimed to bring to higher education are an indispensable component of the spirit of Georgetown. 

As a campus, and as a community, we must remain committed to diversity. 

However, I would like to see more than just a statement from the university. Rather than just claiming to support equity in the admissions process, I challenge Georgetown and other universities nationwide to do more than maintain a superficial commitment to diversity. 

Georgetown should remove legacy admissions. Georgetown should continue to increase its investment in students of color through various programs on campus, such as the Georgetown Scholars Program and the Community Scholars Program. 

I want to see a Georgetown that not only increases diversity, but accepts it. Small changes, such as renaming Gaston Hall, are all steps in this direction. At Georgetown, one of the Jesuit values that we pride ourselves on is “Community in Diversity,” and I hope to see Georgetown continue to live up to this value as a leader in academic and social progress.

The Supreme Court’s decisions in Students for Fair Admissions v. President and Fellows of Harvard College and Students for Fair Admissions v. University of North Carolina mean that future Black and Latinx college applicants will see their chances at college admission plummet anywhere from 25% to 65%. This is a decision with ramifications that will fall on the shoulders of future generations of students of color pursuing higher education. 

Affirmative action has been permissible in college admissions since the Supreme Court’s 1978 ruling in Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, yet this decades-long precedent was erased in a largely misguided argument. This summer’s Supreme Court decisions emerged from the misguided misconception that affirmative action disenfranchises seemingly more qualified white and Asian-American applicants to prioritize access to higher education for Black and Latinx students.

The opinion of the Supreme Court suggests that race-conscious admissions judge applicants based solely on their race and that of their ancestors, rather than by their own achievements and merit. 

This blatantly disregards the privilege granted to white and Asian-American applicants through the system that not only works in their favor, but has, historically, worked to deny students of color access to quality higher education. 

The framework for affirmative action was established in 1965 to bring equality to the labor force for people of color. A study conducted in New Jersey found that the average Black and Latinx student attends school in a district spending over $1,500 below the per student Adequacy Spending Target. All the while, their white peers, who are more likely to be wealthier and in possession of “cultural capital,” have access to numerous advantages in the college admissions process, such as extensive standardized testing preparation and private college counselors. 

Although the provisions of affirmative action may fail to encapsulate the circumstances of every student, its policies have been crucial in remedying the inequities present in college admissions. Since its inception, affirmative action has not only been an engine for increasing racial diversity on college campuses, but has also sought to provide an invaluable diversity in perspectives, beliefs and ideas that may not be present in academia otherwise. 

Studies conducted at Georgetown University by the Center on Education and the Workforce have shown that removing racial considerations from the college admissions process would decrease the ethnic diversity of students at the most selective schools in the country. In fact, the study concluded that there was “no good substitute for the consideration of race” in attempts to equalize college accessibility across racial, ethnic and socioeconomic groups. 

The Supreme Court’s decision to rule affirmative action unconstitutional is a direct affront to diversity in higher education. Affirmative action did not cure the diversity problem facing American universities, but it provided a launch pad for progress. 

Some minority groups — particularly Black and Latinx students — are still underrepresented in the nation’s top universities. This underrepresentation will only increase after the fall of affirmative action. When affirmative action was banned for the first time in 1998 in the University of California (UC) system, UC Los Angeles and UC Berkeley saw 43% and 66% decreases, respectively, in the number of Black first-year students admitted. 

The nation’s highest court has now created yet another hoop for students of color to jump through in our pursuit of equal access to higher education. The Supreme Court’s ruling will set a precedent that will be difficult — if not impossible — to reverse. Like many students across the country, I worry that the statement made by this ruling could lead to increased efforts to remove various resources that have been previously available to Black and Latinx students, such as race-conscious scholarships and grants. 

Despite the Supreme Court’s ruling, I remain hopeful that current and future Black and Latinx students will remain steadfast in their pursuit of higher education.

In light of the news, University President John J. DeGioia (CAS ’79, GRD ’95) issued a statement reaffirming the university’s commitment to increasing the diversity of the student body. DeGioia acknowledged that the diversity of perspectives, backgrounds and experiences that affirmative action aimed to bring to higher education are an indispensable component of the spirit of Georgetown. 

As a campus, and as a community, we must remain committed to diversity. 

However, I would like to see more than just a statement from the university. Rather than just claiming to support equity in the admissions process, I challenge Georgetown and other universities nationwide to do more than maintain a superficial commitment to diversity. 

Georgetown should remove legacy admissions. Georgetown should continue to increase its investment in students of color through various programs on campus, such as the Georgetown Scholars Program and the Community Scholars Program. 

I want to see a Georgetown that not only increases diversity, but accepts it. Small changes, such as renaming Gaston Hall, are all steps in this direction. At Georgetown, one of the Jesuit values that we pride ourselves on is “Community in Diversity,” and I hope to see Georgetown continue to live up to this value as a leader in academic and social progress.

Nestory Ngolle is a sophomore College of Arts and Sciences.