海角大神

What comes after affirmative action for college? Universities in states like California and Michigan, where race-based admissions had already been banned, may hold answers.

President Vladimir Putin weathered the immediate threat to his power last weekend, but his moment of weakness is giving even his allies pause for thought about their relations with Moscow.

At the Monitor Breakfast Thursday, President Joe Biden鈥檚 top economic adviser talked up 鈥淏idenomics鈥� and all the ways the U.S. economy is thriving, despite a still-high rate of inflation.聽聽

The latest 鈥� and last 鈥� Indiana Jones film, 鈥淒ial of Destiny,鈥� raises the question: Can we experience action-adventure movie heroism the way we used to?聽

The U.S. Supreme Court鈥檚 decision today to end race as a factor in college admissions will now launch a vigorous and perhaps difficult search in higher education for legal and creative ways to deservedly educate more students from underrepresented racial groups. Yet it would be helpful to start that search by considering what the court ruling does not do.

It does not dispute as 鈥渃ommendable goals鈥� the desire by Harvard University and the University of North Carolina 鈥� the two institutions at the center of the case 鈥� to cultivate, through diversity, a higher class of 鈥渆ngaged and productive citizens and leaders.鈥� It also acknowledged the importance of 鈥渁ppreciation, respect, and empathy, cross-racial understanding, and breaking down stereotypes.鈥�

Rather, the court has determined that doing so on the basis of any form of racial discrimination, regardless of the desired social effect, violates the constitutional guarantee of 鈥渆qual protection under the law鈥� in the 14th Amendment. As Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the majority decision, 鈥渢he Court has permitted race-based college admissions only within the confines of narrow restrictions: such admissions programs must comply with strict scrutiny, may never use race as a stereotype or negative, and must 鈥� at some point 鈥� end.鈥� In reaching that decision, the majority sought to compel universities to find other means to work toward a more just and equal society.

Today鈥檚 decision comes at a time when concerns about social justice are prompting deeper discussions about diversity, equality, and reparations for past racial harm in offices, school boards, and legislatures across the country. Removing race as a factor in the composition of college classes, Chief Justice Roberts wrote, in no way prevents a consideration of race as a formative factor in individual experience.

鈥淣othing prohibits universities from considering an applicant鈥檚 discussion of how race affected the applicant鈥檚 life, so long as that discussion is concretely tied to a quality of character or unique ability that the particular applicant can contribute to the university,鈥� Chief Justice Roberts wrote. 鈥淢any universities have for too long wrongly concluded that the touchstone of an individual鈥檚 identity is not challenges bested, skills built, or lessons learned, but the color of their skin. This Nation鈥檚 constitutional history does not tolerate that choice.鈥�

In her dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor acknowledged that Harvard and UNC have 鈥渞eckoned with their past and its lingering effects.鈥� She added, 鈥淎cknowledging the reality that race has always mattered and continues to matter, these universities have established institutional goals of diversity and inclusion.鈥� Her main argument finds no objection from the majority: 鈥淓quality requires acknowledgment of inequality.鈥�

The nation鈥檚 ongoing debate over race was reflected in today鈥檚 sharp and divided ruling. Yet it also places the burden of finding solutions back on both universities and citizens. The 鈥渃ommendable goals鈥� of integrated campuses are not dismissed. Schools just need new and different means to achieve them.