I have an ominous hunch that affirmative action will never really go away, despite future Supreme Court rulings. How many times has the Supreme Court heard affirmative action cases and handed down lengthy rulings without effectively changing the status quo of affirmative action in American universities? Probably SCOTUS. will surprise us.

The lawsuits at issue are Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA) v. Harvard University and SFFA v. University of North Carolina. The two universities in the lawsuit are supposed to represent a private university and a public university respectively. The SFFA argues that the university’s use of affirmative action violates the Equal Protection Clause of Title 6 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution by discriminating against whites and Asians. This lawsuit essentially challenges the Supreme Court’s previous ruling that race can be used as part of a “total” process, but not in a points-based or allocation system. SCOTUS held oral arguments last year and a decision is expected soon.

The landmark lawsuits of 1978, 2003, and 2016 all basically confirmed the status quo, with no significant change in the use of affirmative action (state bans influenced change). ordinance). The Supreme Court has ruled that while universities themselves may not have race quotas, they may use race as one of many factors. In effect, this gives the go-ahead for affirmative action. We don’t know if there is a quota that is secretly fulfilled. And the university administration is not trying to reveal it. (Related: Suzanne Downing: Supreme Court Knives Out)

That being said, according to forbes, the Supreme Court “seems likely” to overrule Harvard and UNC’s affirmative action policies based on oral argument. What impact will that have? Will affirmative action really end?

There is no shortage of hypocrisy surrounding affirmative action. Those who want to legalize affirmative action in college admissions argue that affirmative action is essential to maintaining diversity on college campuses. Even some opponents of affirmative action, including some so-called conservative judges, still argued that diversity was important, and criticized Blaine for how diversity could be achieved without affirmative action. I’m just trying to storm. Universities can find other ways to find diversity, they argue. Ok, but how? Unfortunately, if universities select students strictly based on merit, SAT scores, and GPA, they tend to lose diversity, at least as defined for African-American and Hispanic students. I guess.

So far, the great solution colleges are taking is to simply stop requiring ACT and SAT scores. The benefits are on the side. Abandoning academic excellence in the pursuit of “social justice” is insanity.

Even “conservative” Justices Roberts and Amy Coney Barrett argued in oral arguments last year that if affirmative action were to be banned, instead of checking boxes indicating race to students, I speculated that I could write about race in . Excuse me, is that wrong? That would open up a lot of possibilities for university administrators to use race to keep certain ethnic groups ahead of others. Justice Gorsuch went even further and asked how diversity can be achieved without setting quotas: “How can diversity be achieved without considering the numbers?” Gorsuch’s penetrating question shows how unsustainable the current college admissions system is. (Related: Hans von Spakowski: Supreme Court ruling on race-based territorial restructuring really gives me headaches.)

Ultimately, universities should absolutely consider a student’s grades, GPA, and SAT scores in their admissions tests. If this leads to unequal results, the next question is to consider why some groups are struggling under these indicators. In other words, let’s help students achieve their true academic potential, instead of giving one group an edge because of false notions of social justice. Let’s get back to hard work and working on books as the path to success.

Michael Machera writes book reviews and opinions at michaelmacherablog.com.follow him twitter.

The views and opinions expressed in this commentary are those of the author and do not reflect the official position of the Daily Caller News Foundation.

All content produced by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent, nonpartisan news distribution service, is available free of charge to legitimate news publishers capable of serving large audiences. All reissues must include our company logo, press byline, and DCNF affiliation. If you have any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact us at licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.