ALAMOSA — On Thursday, in a decision that overturned a legal precedent that had been in place for decades, the Supreme Court struck down affirmative action, essentially eliminating the ability of both private and public colleges and universities to consider a student’s race in determining if he or she should be admitted to college.

The Supreme Court vote was 6-3, largely falling along ideological lines with the six conservative justices voting to reject affirmative action. In doing so, the court granted a major victory to opponents of the law and achieved their goal of dismantling practices that many conservatives have sought to abolish for years.

The case was centered around two separate lawsuits filed against Harvard University and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (UNC) for their race-conscious admission practices.

By definition, race-conscious admission programs allow for a university to consider a student’s race - as one factor out of many - when deciding to admit that student into a college or university.

One argument in its favor is the importance of increasing the presence in universities of African-Americans, Hispanics and Native Americans who have experienced ongoing racial discrimination and racial inequities in society and, historically, have been underrepresented in selective institutions like Harvard or UNC.

The second argument centers on “compelling interest in diversity” and the benefits diversity brings to students and society. This argument is supported by research that shows students who enroll in more diverse college classrooms earn high GPAs, engage in more diverse college discussion and experience greater exposure to diverse thoughts and peers which leads to increased civic attitudes and engagement.

Nonetheless, the opinion, written by Chief Justice Roberts, found that those admission practices violated the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment.

“The student must be treated based on his or her experiences as an individual — not on the basis of race,” Roberts wrote. “Eliminating racial discrimination means eliminating all of it.”

“Deeming race irrelevant in law does not make it so in life,” Justice Ketanji Brown-Jackson wrote in her dissent. “If the colleges of this country are required to ignore a thing that matters, it will not just go away. It will take longer for racism to leave us. And, ultimately, ignoring race just makes it matter more.”

In Colorado, the Supreme Court’s ruling has less of a direct impact as not all colleges use race-conscious admission programs and others have inclusive admission policies.

For example, Adams State University (ASU) is an “open enrollment” university where the only requirement for admission is a high school diploma. ASU is also designated as a Hispanic Serving Institution (HSI), defined in federal law as an accredited, degree-granting institution of higher education with 25% or more total undergraduate Hispanic or Latino/a full-time equivalent student enrollment. Hispanic or Latino/ enrollment at ASU approaches 50%.

“Adams State is already the most diverse campus in Colorado,” Bruce Rosengrant, ASU’s Vice President for Community Engagement and Communication, told the Valley Courier.   

Amy Parsons, president of Colorado State University (CSU), also issued a statement within just a few hours of the ruling to reassure prospective students.

“To prospective students and families who fear this ruling will change their access to a CSU education,” she wrote, “nothing could be further from the truth. An undergraduate education at CSU remains available to all qualified students with the talent and determination to attend a top-tier research university.”

Parsons also clarified that the Supreme Court ruling will not affect CSU’s undergraduate admissions process that’s been in place for decades, which “assesses the student holistically through a wide range of factors, including personal experiences and academic achievements.” At CSU, she wrote, “a public land-grant university, no qualified student is turned away from earning a world-class 4-year degree.”

In a separate statement, CSU Chancellor Tony Frank wrote, “The CSU System remains steadfastly committed to serving the state of Colorado and the needs of the world through educating a diverse student body. Recruiting and graduating a student body that reflects changing Colorado demographics is a critical part of our mission, and we will continue to do so using the race-neutral strategies available to us.

“CSU Fort Collins, CSU Pueblo, and CSU Global are committed to admitting all qualified students. In individual programs with capacity restrictions, such as graduate and professional programs and some majors, not all academically qualified students may be admitted to the program. CSU is reviewing all its processes to ensure they are in keeping with SCOTUS requirements in the holistic review of individual candidates.”

In a statement, University of Colorado President Todd Saliman confirmed the university’s broader definition of diversity, including demographics and life experiences. “We will continue to employ admission processes that consider the whole student and their ability to succeed in our academically rigorous and supportive environment. In fact, our board has set policy that makes it clear that diversity encompasses demographic characteristics while also encompassing diverse life experiences and perspectives.

“We are steadfast in our belief that a vibrant and inclusive community leads to a richer educational experience for all, contributes to a positive society, and prepares our graduates to excel in an increasingly interconnected and diverse world.”

While expressing strong solidarity with “the compelling interest in diversity” is clearly communicated by college and university presidents, the core of the Supreme Court ruling centers around the contrasting, if not conflicting, views held by the justices.

In his most frequently quoted statements, Chief Justice Roberts does not seem to directly address historic and contemporary racial disparity in America, focusing instead on the impact of colleges’ and universities’ admission practices on others not typically included in affirmative action.

However, in Justice Brown-Jackson’s dissenting opinion, she throws the issue right on the kitchen table where it cannot be ignored. “Deeming race irrelevant in law does not make it so in life.”

With the exception of one response, elected officials, school administrators and civic leaders were focused on the same aspect of the ruling.

“Given what we've seen in other states when they've banned the consideration of race in admissions, the ruling is likely to negatively impact the diversity of student bodies at selective institutions in a significant way,” says ASU President David Tandberg. “The research on TX and CA makes this clear. This will make it harder for those institutions to address historic and current equity gaps and structural barriers.

“At Adams State we remain committed to advancing equity and opportunity within the San Luis Valley and beyond. And will always continue to make this a priority.”

The research from Texas and California, both states that have banned race-conscious admission programs, shows that removing race as a consideration greatly reduced the enrollment of students of color, a gap that has yet to be closed using other practices.

Colorado U.S. Senator Michael Bennet stated, “Today’s Supreme Court decision undermines our nation’s promise of equal opportunity for all, especially for those citizens who have been historically denied it. We must recommit to our struggle against our country’s legacy of racism and inequality to ensure that every American, regardless of their background, enjoys the opportunity they deserve.”

Colorado U.S. Senator John Hickenlooper’s statement read, “Affirmative action helps ensure students from all backgrounds have a fair opportunity at quality education. This is a devastating ruling for America.”

“For over 45 years, affirmative action policies have helped to correct for past discrimination, to provide more opportunities to historically underrepresented communities, and to ensure that students can learn in diverse and inclusive environments,” said AG Weiser. “This Court’s misguided conclusion, claiming that these longstanding policies violate the Constitution, threatens to undermine the progress we have made on college campuses to create access for all Americans and ensure a diverse learning environment for all.”

State Representative Matthew Martinez told the Valley Courier, “This is a major step backward from where we have been. I’m hoping that this doesn’t have a detrimental effect on students trying to achieve their higher educational goals.”

State senator Cleave Simpson’s view both acknowledged the challenges and the sentiment behind the court ruling as he understood it, telling the Valley Courier, “I have not read the ruling or opinions released by the court, so I won't offer direct comment on the case until given the opportunity to review all the documents and relevant information.

“But, I do appreciate and value the benefits of diversity on higher education college campuses.  Diversity in gender, race, age, and political viewpoints all lead to better outcomes to students and communities. Regardless of the court's decision, I think higher education institutions can still be active in assuring campus diversity and giving all students a much-needed step up on the economic ladder. I think we can accomplish this without impeding or sacrificing other students' rights.”

While this ruling may have the greatest impact on selective universities in other parts of the country, the message has a noted impact on those working directly with students of color – primarily Hispanic students whose college years are still ahead of them – and those in the community who are struggling, on a daily basis, to improve race relations.

Jamie Dominguez, civic leader devoted to growing leadership capacity among Hispanic residents of the valley and founder of Shooting Stars Cultural and Leadership Center, expressed his thoughts to the Valley Courier, saying, “I would say, on the record, that this is a very bad idea. It takes away any backbone for minority people to address future discrimination when enrolling. I think it is a watering down tactic in a time when we are gaining momentum against racism on all levels as leaders.”

And finally, Luis Murillo, Assistant Superintendent of Alamosa School District, said, “The decision of the SCOTUS regarding affirmative action will further exacerbate the educational inequities felt by students of color.

“I think the ruling will limit the opportunities for kids of color to get into certain universities, which is going to have a trickle-down effect on generations and continue with some of the challenging things that are tied to education such as poverty and health.

“I think, for our high school kids of color, this will send the message to them that there is no consideration of all they have accomplished given all they have experienced and, regardless of what they went through, this is the bar. You’ll have to have a certain GPA and score on your SAT if you have any hope of getting into one of the more selective schools.

“I hope our kids will know what this means for them. I’m afraid they will not.”

Only one person the Valley Courier reached out to expressed unfettered support for the decision. Rep. Lauren Boebert wrote, “Affirmative Action is unconstitutional and has always been unconstitutional. This country should only be based on merit, not racism.

“This ruling will go a long way towards achieving a country where we are judged by the content of our character, rather than the color of our skin.”