A few days shy of the fourth of July, six Supreme Court justices dealt heavy blows to the independence of millions of poor and underrepresented Americans. With twin 6-3 rulings against race-conscious college admissions and student loan debt relief, the justices sent a loud and clear message that two systemic problems, racism and debt, do not exist. The first decision, deeming the affirmative-action practices of Harvard and the University of North Carolina unlawful, reflects a central paradox of progress in the United States: A nation founded on the premise of race must use race to mitigate systemic racism.
The comments of justices Clarence Thomas and Sonia Sotomayor illustrate opposing forces creating this tension. “This is not 1958 or 1968,” Thomas said during an oral concurrence, a rare break from his usual courtroom silence. “Today’s youth do not shoulder moral debts of their ancestors.” Sotomayor disagreed in her dissent: “Entrenched racial inequality remains a reality today. … What was true in the 1860s, and again in 1954, is true today: Equality requires acknowledgment of inequality.”
As if imposing more obstacles for people of color in college admissions were not enough, the Supreme Court then struck the death knell for the Biden-Harris administration’s student loan debt relief program.
This time, the remarks of Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Elena Kagan reflected the opposing positions. Roberts scolded the executive branch, demanding “that Congress speak clearly before a Department Secretary can unilaterally alter large sections of the American economy.” Kagan in turn scolded the judiciary: “The result here is that the Court substitutes itself for Congress and the Executive Branch in making national policy about student-loan forgiveness.”
President Biden immediately resolved to use a different avenue to advance debt relief that would drastically improve the lives of some 40 million Americans.
What does all of this add up to? On the one hand, only time will tell. What is certain is that the Supreme Court has re-introduced profound uncertainty for socio-economically and racially disadvantaged families on the cusp of a very important, very difficult decision: whether or not to attend college at all. Without the promise of student loan relief, poor and even middle-class families will have an even tougher time reconciling the benefits of attending college with the long-term debt it begets. It is a dilemma I know all too well.
The news of the decisions immediately sent me back to summer 1999. Like many young adults, I couldn’t afford to make the college decision lightly. I knew it was a tall financial order my family could not meet without assistance, along with a wing and a prayer. I used all the grants and loans available to ease the burden. I spent the summer before attending Columbia University picking up shifts as a cashier at Pathmark, my local supermarket.
Despite my best efforts, I arrived at Columbia’s upper Manhattan campus that fall owing the university around $5,000. When my parent’s attempts at securing additional loan support failed due to impossible credit score thresholds, I found innovative ways to put off the outstanding balance. Each subsequent school year, the balance would await me, accruing interest and even at times blocking my ability to register for classes.
After graduation, that balance followed me into my first years as a high-school English teacher. Managing and eliminating this debt is difficult and demoralizing, often leading many to punish themselves for deciding to attend college and persuading others to skip higher education altogether. This is why upending a federal program that aims to eliminate $20,000 for eligible loans not only devastates many borrowers but also stifles the next generation — cutting off a path to advancement before the question of affirmative action even presents itself.
Unfortunately, beneficiaries of the New Deal and civil rights laws, including Roberts and Thomas, have determined that future generations do not deserve or need the benefits they’ve been afforded. And there’s no reason to believe they’re done. These consequential decisions signal that the current Supreme Court majority is prepared to block a number of private, public, local and federal programs to ameliorate systemic racism and debt.
In response, some have pointed to the court’s potential design flaws — a nine-member, largely homogeneous body without term limits making consequential decisions about an ever-more diverse population of 336 million people. Others have declared these actions the outcome of an influential decades-long right-wing agenda to roll back rights of every kind. While all of this may be true, something more profound is clear: This court’s reading of where we are today is ahistorical.
A nation without an official history is vulnerable to interpretations that upend meaningful attempts to repair and transform systemic inequality. Without an official national record of atrocities, of the enslavement at the root of systemic racism and poverty, programs designed to redress any kind of inequality through education will not withstand attacks — nor the test of time.
What we need is a federal truth commission, something like the Truth, Racial Healing, and Transformation Commission proposed in 2021 by California Rep. Barbara Lee. The commission would prevent continued denials of American history by establishing a publicly available ledger documenting and memorializing the harms permitted and authorized by the federal government. Similar commissions that followed the Holocaust and apartheid drew together historical evidence, testimony and scholarship, creating an indisputable record of governmental accountability in Germany and South Africa, respectively.
Although Justice Thomas argues that youth should not be subject to the moral failings of past generations, the pressing and continuing gap in achievement by race and socio-economic status proves the plain fact that systemic inequality impedes the pursuit of happiness. It is a moral failing we all bear, a problem we all must fix. But first we must all acknowledge it — and continue to do so.
Rather than simply feeling defeated by these decisions, let them also serve as a potent reminder that the collective work to achieve equity is still before us. May we all be reinvigorated to unite to compel elected officials to remedy systemic racism and inequity. Equality of both outcome and opportunity requires equity in every realm, and that’s the truth to which we should all be reconciled.
What irritates me about this is the blatant double standard, I dare not say hypocrisy because the double standards are the point. Thomas himself benefited from affirmative action and was supportive of it when it benefited him, and likewise too Trump handed out unaccountable, unauditable and broadly forgiven PPP loans in a significantly large “alteration” of the economy. So the conservative justices are essentially saying that when things benefit them and/or their side they are supportive of it from a judicial standpoint but when it does not benefit them and/or benefits what they would likely view as the opposing side then they are against it.
But that’s not how the law or its interpretation is supposed to be. Laws are not meant to favor one group over another and even in the rare instance where that is inevitable it isn’t supposed to be subjective or arbitrary. It is supposed to be grounded in legal principle and precedent, two things that are consistently being ignored or discarded by this conservative majority just like their legislative and executive cohorts.
It’s the party of “fuck you, I got mine.”
PPP loans came from the CARES Act, directly authorized by Congress. If Congress were to pass a law that more clearly allows Biden to forgive student loans than canceling everyone’s loans on the basis that they all must have “suffered direct economic hardship as a result of a war, military operation, or national emergency,” the SCOTUS would allow it.