As the dust settles after this summer’s landmark case ending racial consideration for affirmative action in college admissions, the right-wing forces that fought so hard for this outcome are now ramping up their attacks. Most notably, in Georgia, the misleadingly named American Alliance for Equal Rights, an organization founded by an anti-affirmative action activist, found a new target: a grant program that hopes to uplift Black women entrepreneurs.
The Atlanta-based Fearless Fund administers the Strivers Grant Contest, which awards up to $20,000 to businesses. One requirement for this grant (among others) is that the company must be at least 51 percent owned by a Black woman. As the Fearless Fund prepares for legal battle, its current grant application cycle for the Strivers Grant was blocked by federal judges. The Fearless Fund is confident that it will prevail in court, but the blocking of the application cycle is devastating.
Such attacks reveal very vulnerable aspects of affirmative action because institutions have relied firmly on the policy alone to bridge gaps of diversity.
Affirmative action as a policy practice emerged in the 1960s as the U.S. struggled to imagine its future post-segregation. It was an attempt to remedy systemic exclusion of people of color. Discrimination against Black and Brown people is also reinforced by poverty and lower-quality education. Affirmative action is a valuable policy when supported by other policies that address root issues of inequity. Unfortunately, absent substantive systemic change, affirmative action alone is a superficial attempt to address inequity. It is this vulnerability that allowed conservatives to undo affirmative action and undermine missions for diversifying institutions.
Disparities in income distribution and quality education access are deeply linked to a legacy of racial discrimination in the U.S. for underrepresented communities of color. Growing up in South Florida, my middle school was the former segregated Black high school in my area. Yet schools throughout the U.S. are still heavily segregated, from big cities to rural areas. This was apparent to me as a student: There were clear gaps in the school’s funding, course availability and resources for students in my predominantly Black school, as teachers remained underpaid and struggled to meet students’ needs.
Beyond the schoolyard, poverty only further cemented these inequities as families struggled to remain afloat. Many of my talented peers had a hard time focusing on school while facing poverty. In hindsight, it felt like the inequities I experienced growing up ensured that only a few students could be cherry-picked for college through pipeline programs. Pipeline programs support a few “exceptional” students from underprivileged backgrounds and prepare them for competitive college applications. It felt like a rat race to go to college despite our backgrounds, but why must I be exceptional to have a fair shot at life?
In a post-affirmative action world, pipeline programs such as Questbridge, CollegePoint, and many other local efforts are certainly a starting point, but we should also be looking at solutions that will make pipeline programs obsolete.
Programs that address poverty and how they particularly affect people of color are necessary to close this gap. Both are necessary because racial inequity reinforces poverty, and poverty has a particular effect on those affected by racism. Combating this requires systemic changes that address past racial injustices through reparative efforts, along with increasing access to education, health care, child care and affordable quality food in low-income communities. In a world where all people, including Black and Brown people, have their basic needs met and are given opportunities to thrive with a quality education, pipeline programs are much more effective in diversifying institutions.
Higher education institutions themselves must also investigate how they uplift exclusionary standards. Universities’ cost, culture, curriculum, recruiting practices and admission standards help reinforce the admittance of only a few exceptional low-income Black and Brown students. Colleges that are affordable and provide quality education to diverse student bodies must be the future of higher education. It’s also important to ensure that these institutions truly reflect the background and needs of students with diverse school curricula that foster reflective and critical thinking.
In the wake of the end of race-conscious admissions through affirmative action, governments and higher education institutions must work to address diversity in a much more substantial way. Affirmative action is a useful tool, but without systemic changes, it is not enough. It only leads to students who are praised for being exceptions to the rule but don’t challenge “the rule” itself. As universities, employers, and our government reimagine methods of increasing diversity, any solutions they put forward must be substantive and focus on addressing systemic inequities.
We’re not backing down in the face of Trump’s threats.
As Donald Trump is inaugurated a second time, independent media organizations are faced with urgent mandates: Tell the truth more loudly than ever before. Do that work even as our standard modes of distribution (such as social media platforms) are being manipulated and curtailed by forces of fascist repression and ruthless capitalism. Do that work even as journalism and journalists face targeted attacks, including from the government itself. And do that work in community, never forgetting that we’re not shouting into a faceless void – we’re reaching out to real people amid a life-threatening political climate.
Our task is formidable, and it requires us to ground ourselves in our principles, remind ourselves of our utility, dig in and commit.
As a dizzying number of corporate news organizations – either through need or greed – rush to implement new ways to further monetize their content, and others acquiesce to Trump’s wishes, now is a time for movement media-makers to double down on community-first models.
At Truthout, we are reaffirming our commitments on this front: We won’t run ads or have a paywall because we believe that everyone should have access to information, and that access should exist without barriers and free of distractions from craven corporate interests. We recognize the implications for democracy when information-seekers click a link only to find the article trapped behind a paywall or buried on a page with dozens of invasive ads. The laws of capitalism dictate an unending increase in monetization, and much of the media simply follows those laws. Truthout and many of our peers are dedicating ourselves to following other paths – a commitment which feels vital in a moment when corporations are evermore overtly embedded in government.
Over 80 percent of Truthout‘s funding comes from small individual donations from our community of readers, and the remaining 20 percent comes from a handful of social justice-oriented foundations. Over a third of our total budget is supported by recurring monthly donors, many of whom give because they want to help us keep Truthout barrier-free for everyone.
You can help by giving today during our fundraiser. We have 10 days to add 500 new monthly donors. Whether you can make a small monthly donation or a larger gift, Truthout only works with your support.