|
Faculty and alumni criticize the Supreme Court’s decisions in a set of Reactions: Allison Slater Tate ’96 analyzes how this decision has created “one more hurdle for underrepresented students to clear.” Visiting professor and constitutional law scholar Martin S. Flaherty ’81 expresses how Chief Justice Roberts’s opinion “willfully turned a blind eye to a thorough understanding of the original understanding of the Equal Protection Clause.” Other Princeton-affiliated experts discuss the questions, complications, and consequences of the Supreme Court’s recent affirmative action ruling.
READ THE REACTIONS→
Colorblind meritocracy is untenable in a country that never cared about equality: Senior Columnist Gisele Bisch addresses the idea that universities can still consider experiences without considering race. She writes, “Equality and meritocracy cannot thrive in a country where such things were never the priority in the first place. A lack of affirmative action will only exacerbate this issue.”
READ THE COLUMN→
Affirmative action has failed to create the diversity universities need: Columnist Matthew Wilson argues that a diverse campus is important, but with a focus on racial diversity, affirmative action has failed to achieve it: “despite affirmative action, students here are disproportionately wealthy, ideologically homogeneous, and vote as a bloc. We might ‘look like America’ in a photograph, but beyond our skin color, we look more like the Upper East Side,” Wilson writes.
READ THE COLUMN→
|
