Gary Franks: Will the Supreme Court turn back the clock?

Asian Americans have done exceedingly well, as members of that community comprise 19% of Harvard College students, even though they make up just 7% of the overall American population. Kudos to them.

They are overrepresented at the nation’s top schools, not underrepresented. Yet they have a grievance they have taken to the Supreme Court, apparently not satisfied with their success.

Their argument for changing the current admission process falls flat. It is akin to a Black basketball player who gets cut from a NBA team and says the league is racist against Black players. Plus, there is no proof that anyone from the Asian American community was wrongfully rejected from Harvard.

So why are we even here? This is an enigma. The lower courts rejected their argument as well. Yet, here we are — at the highest level of justice.

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas says he does not understand what diversity is. Is that a disqualifier or another enigma? It is like the president of the United States not knowing what weapons of mass destruction are. Both sad and cynical.

Fairness and diversity are what allow the cream to rise to the top. As the Supreme Court weighs whether to end race as a factor in college admissions, the justices must look at the damage they would cause if they reverse course on the court’s previous ruling that it can be a factor. It would be a “back to the future” moment in American history.

Schools apply multiple factors in admissions to better evaluate a student’s potential for success and his or her contribution to the student body and future role in society.

Geography and legacy are permitted as factors for admission and are not being challenged.

Test scores are just one barometer. Boarding schools and private schools start SAT practice testing when students are freshmen and sophomores in high school. Many, if not most, of those students have class prep or private tutors just for the SAT. But many universities now acknowledge that wealthy students are able to perform better on standardized tests because of the aforementioned benefits, so they are not requiring SATs anymore as a way to bring in a more diverse student body that can excel in the school’s courses.

Geography is an important factor in admissions and rightfully so. The top high schools in the country with some of the most talented students and teachers are in certain states. Yet elite colleges do not just draw from those schools. They give value to having as many, if not all, states represented at their institutions, as well as having all kinds of preparatory schools represented.

Yes, it is easier to go to an elite college from certain states, and there is nothing wrong with that. It is also part of a diverse admissions class. Conversely, if a student is an out-of-state applicant for a state college, it is more difficult for him or her to gain admission.

There are broader ramifications as well.

The U.S. solicitor general warned the Supreme Court that removing race as a factor in admissions would be a “national security” issue as it is needed to ensure diversity in the officer ranks of the military (per the academies and ROTC participants).

Removing “race as a factor” in college admissions would also damage the pipelines to good jobs for Black Americans, which is where the Supreme Court comes in. The court has evidence that the college enrollment of Black people at elite colleges will decrease with a decision to eliminate race as a factor.

Top companies recruit only from elite schools. Thus, the problem comes full circle.

Without race as a factor in college admissions, the fate of Black students would be nearly sealed. They would not get high paying jobs from top companies simply because they did not graduate from colleges that top companies send their recruiters to.

The Supreme Court decision will have economic consequences for decades to come.

This too pushes America back to the 1950s and early 1960s when Black people were relegated to HBCUs. For some that is where Black people belong. Yes, back to Plessy vs Ferguson — separate but equal. (Please note: I was a visiting professor at a HBCU for 14 years and my comments are not meant to be condescending.)

It was clear even from the presentation to the court by lawyers for the Asian American litigants that Black people would be adversely affected if they win their proposed changes of eliminating race as a factor in admissions.

To just eliminate race as a factor and ascertain the Black enrollment results of the University of California Berkeley, which is at 3%, is not the solution, but it could be the future. It would be harsh, hateful and irresponsible to knowingly allow this to happen nationwide.

Let us not go “back to the future.” That may have been a good “movie/time” for white people, but not necessarily for “everyone.”