Leftist professors react to SCOTUS affirmative action case

On Oct. 31 the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case Students for Fair Admissions v. President and Fellows of Harvard, addressing whether Harvard’s affirmative action policies constitute unconstitutional discrimination against Asian and White students.

Liberal academics had much to say on Twitter about the case. Below are just some of those reactions.

Deborah Archer, professor at NYU School of Law, said the justices should have “debat[ed] the meaning of merit” rather than “debat[ed] the meaning of diversity.”

What was missing from today’s argument was how biased current admission standards are. Rather than debating the meaning of diversity, we should be debating the meaning of merit.

— Deborah Archer (@DeborahNArcher) October 31, 2022

Professor of Cinema and Television Arts at California State University, Anthony Sparks, told his Twitter audience that he’d wait for someone to tell him what percent of Black students in elite colleges they would be ok with, implying the court case is really about anti-Black discrimination.

According to his faculty bio, Sparks is “[a] long time advocate for diversity equity and inclusion in the arts and education.”

Using Brown v Board, which was to open educational opportunity to Black students, to DENY opportunity to Black students is horrid. Black students r only 4-5% of most elite college populations. So what, pray tell, % of us would y’all be okay with? I’ll wait https://t.co/45rtvsiUFj

— Anthony Sparks (@SparksAnthony) October 31, 2022

Professor at University of Michigan Law, Leah Litman, praised Justice Jackson’s questions during the oral arguments, using fire emojis to emphasize her approval. 

Litman was previously involved in the Supreme Court case Whole Women’s Health v. Hellerstedt, which, prior to the overturn of Roe and Casey this summer, reaffirmed the holding of Planned Parenthood v. Casey. 

Justice Jackson’s question about how the anti-affirmative action position allows some family backgrounds & histories to be valued (white families with legacies) but not others (black families who experienced racial discrimination and/or were enslaved) is 🔥🔥🔥. and so on point.

— Leah Litman (@LeahLitman) October 31, 2022

Janelle Wong, Professor at the University of Maryland - College Park, said the Harvard case could potentially “mess w/our minds,” and linked to a piece in which she and other scholars argue against the notion that Asian applicants are unfairly discriminated against.

(1/5) Harvard admissions case can mess w/our minds - especially with so much misinformation around #AsianAmericans and potential discrimination. Here is a short piece to help sort out the “personal rating” that has been the subject of much confusion.https://t.co/PKkTd6Evzp

— Janelle S. Wong (@ProfJanelleWong) November 1, 2022

“Reflecting on the SCOTUS oral arguments yesterday, one thing that is clear is that there’s more work to be done for racial equity & justice in & by higher education,” University of Michigan associate research scientist, Carson Byrd, concluded from the arguments.

Reflecting on the SCOTUS oral arguments yesterday, one thing that is clear is that there’s more work to be done for racial equity & justice in & by higher education. There’s no “sunset” for that work or need to do it. So, back to work I go...

— W. Carson Byrd (@Prof_WCByrd) November 1, 2022

Assistant Professor of education at Boston University, Jerry Whitmore, Jr., posted a Tweet praising Justice Jackson, exclaiming “This voice is so powerful to millions of us!”

Now this guy just said, what’s the educational benefit of diversity, while invoking slavery... #AllSkinfolkAintKinfolk pic.twitter.com/WNQFbk2Hug

— Jerry Whitmore, Jr. (@ProfWhitmoreEdu) October 31, 2022

Immediately beneath this tweet, Whitmore bashed Justice Clarence Thomas with a hashtag stating “All Skin Folk Aint Kin Folk,” implying Thomas is not a true Black person.

Campus Reform reached out to all professors mentioned. This article will be updated accordingly.