[Congressional Record Volume 169, Number 118 (Tuesday, July 11, 2023)]
[House]
[Pages H3198-H3203]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
SUPREME COURT DECISION ON AFFIRMATIVE ACTION WILL HAVE DEVASTATING
EFFECTS
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of
January 9, 2023, the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Cherfilus-
McCormick) is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority
leader.
General Leave
Mrs. CHERFILUS-McCORMICK. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that
all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks
and include any extraneous material on the subject of this Special
Order hour.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from Florida?
There was no objection.
Mrs. CHERFILUS-McCORMICK. Mr. Speaker, it is with great honor that I
rise today to coanchor this CBC Special Order hour along with my
distinguished colleague, Representative Jackson.
For the next 60 minutes, members of the CBC have an opportunity to
speak directly to the American people on affirmative action, an issue
of great importance to the Congressional Black Caucus, Congress, the
constituents we represent, and all Americans.
I rise today in the wake of the consequential U.S. Supreme Court
decision on affirmative action, which will have devastating ripple
effects and exacerbate inequities for years to come.
I am a Congresswoman, but one of my other most important jobs is
being a mother to two amazing college students. Supporting our children
through their admissions process was a frank reminder of my own
personal journey. I remembered the blanket of anxiety I experienced
when pondering my options for higher education.
Even with excellent grades, would the pronunciation of my last name
work against me?
[[Page H3199]]
Would someone see my volunteer work and judge keywords such as Urban
League of Broward County or Black student union?
Would I be accepted? Would I be enough?
Last month, SCOTUS delivered a crushing and unnecessary setback to
the promise of higher education and its ability to provide economic
mobility to communities of color. I could not stop thinking about every
high school senior who is now worried that they won't have a fair
chance to go to college and who fears they won't have the same shot at
the American Dream.
As Americans, we are better than this. We must live up to the ideals
of this Nation. We cannot ignore the invisible advantages embedded in
our society. The alternative to so-called neutral indicators of merit,
like standardized test scores and extracurricular activities, are far
from neutral. They are often influenced by unfair and devastating
disadvantages that fall along racial lines.
Here is what I know for sure: the grit and grind ingrained in the
heart of one who has to push twice as hard for many Black students and
minorities who are trying to actually raise the bar for their families
and for their communities and who don't have access to legacy networks
or rich family members who are donors.
We must fight so that every student, regardless of their race, has an
equal opportunity for higher education.
Let me be clear. We will not stand by silently as extremists attempt
to turn back the clock on civil rights. We must live up to the ideals
of equality in our country. We must have the congressional body and the
Supreme Court think about this decision and how it will affect
generations to come.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Jackson), my
coanchor.
Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I thank the Honorable
Congresswoman Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick from Florida for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to lend my voice to the chorus of those who
are mortified and offended by the recent and misguided Supreme Court
decision striking down affirmative action in college admissions.
Today, I stand in unity with the thousands of Black and Brown
families I represent in the First Congressional District of Illinois
and the millions across this Nation who have personally endured the
harsh realities of racism in America and deserve to be respectfully
heard on this significant matter.
What the Supreme Court has done flies in the face of what African
Americans have been working to achieve in this country for over 250
years.
Black people in America have never asked this country for special
treatment, but what we have rightly asked for and demanded is that
there be policies put in place that do not intentionally and
unrepentantly exclude us from participating in the benefits of the
American Dream.
{time} 2015
Affirmative action was not a way for Black people to be given special
privileges but was rather a very conservative solution to attempt to
atone for the legacy of generational bigotry and systemic injustice.
I dare anybody to justify the logic that would compel someone to
believe that giving people who have been excluded from the game an
opportunity to get on the field is somehow racist or an affront to
White people.
If the game were fair, we wouldn't need affirmative action in
America. If the rules were transparent, we would not need affirmative
action in America. And if the playing field was even, and everybody was
judged by their character and merit, we would not need affirmative
action in America.
But when has this ever been the case? And it is not the case today.
There has never been a time in this Nation when favoritism didn't tip
the scales at the expense of other equally deserving individuals.
You see, this formation of the middle class in the United States is
not a tale of self-made success alone, but a story profoundly
influenced by government policy.
It is a narrative indelibly marked by historical reality: The U.S.
Government, through a combination of Federal programs, played a pivotal
role in creating an exclusively White middle class.
Beginning with the Homestead Act, followed by the G.I. Bill, and the
provisions of the Federal Housing Administration and VA loans, a triad
of Federal programs was established. These programs were instrumental
in allowing Whites to extricate themselves from poverty and achieve a
modicum of the American Dream. It is crucial to understand that middle
class White Americans did not solely pull themselves up by their
bootstraps. The G.I. Bill emerged as an historic opportunity for wealth
creation, unprecedented in world history.
Homeownership, once an elusive dream for many, became a reachable
goal. Car financing expanded its reach. Higher education became a
feasible ambition for a broader population.
The government acknowledged that empowering people to be self-reliant
is not the same as bestowing unearned advantages. These programs
systematically excluded African Americans from reaping the legal
benefits that they had rightfully earned through their military service
and their ancestors' enslavement. Thus, while these programs shaped a
burgeoning White middle class, they simultaneously perpetuated an
insidious racial wealth gap.
During our previous Memorial Day commemoration, I stood here and
recounted the stark reality of how earlier administrations diligently
undermined the legal rights of Black veterans. The number of Black
individuals granted land or qualifying for the Homestead Act was
woefully low, even though their ancestors were promised 40 acres and a
mule--a promise explicitly made, endorsed by the full faith and credit
of the United States of America, yet a promise unfulfilled.
While Black Americans descended deeper into poverty, the White middle
class began to flourish.
Now the Supreme Court would like us to believe that after 50 years of
trying to level the playing field, that somehow miraculously and
fundamentally our Nation has been transformed. The Supreme Court would
like for us to believe that what took 300 years to destroy has now been
completely resurrected in 50 years.
Show me a single instance where reconstruction outpaces destruction.
To make matters worse, the Supreme Court used the 14th Amendment, an
amendment that was designed to ensure equality, to strike down a
Federal program that permitted race as an acceptable consideration for
admission opportunities.
Does anyone else perceive the irony?
The very amendment utilized to reach this flawed decision was
designed to incorporate race as a lasting constitutional consideration
at every level of American life.
How can one justify using a law created to safeguard a certain race
as the basis for undermining fundamental aspects of their protection?
But what this decision shows us is that conservative members of the
Supreme Court are not strict constructionists, as they would like us to
believe. What this decision shows us is that the Supreme Court doesn't
actually believe in the furtherance of a meritocracy in America. We
know this because while the Court eliminated race as a viable
consideration, it did not, however, do anything about legacy
admissions.
According to Forbes Magazine, approximately 42 percent of the
applicants accepted into Harvard University, our Nation's oldest
private institution, founded in 1636, were donor-related applicants,
while another 34 percent of the admissions were legacy.
Mr. Speaker, I would ask my colleagues on the other side to explain
to me how this qualifies as meritocracy.
Plainly stated, it does not. If you are wealthy, if your family has a
legacy of attending a certain school, you will be given favorable
attention with respect to the consideration of your application.
What the Supreme Court has told us is that money and nepotism are
completely acceptable for choosing who should be educated at the
selective enrollment universities.
The Supreme Court would have us believe that racism has ended, and
everybody is equal. However, if you are fortunate to come from wealth
and your family has a tradition of attending a specific school, you can
receive preferential treatment.
[[Page H3200]]
This was not a decision based upon precedent. This was not a decision
based upon history. Nor was this decision rooted in the current
realities of America. Yet, we will not be deterred by this setback. We
will not quietly allow the victories of our past to fade into the
obscurity of the night or let the spark of our conviction be
extinguished.
We refuse to watch helplessly as the new America, the America that
Dr. Martin Luther dreamed of and indeed gave his life to birth, becomes
threatened.
The scales of justice have tipped in favor of those with privilege
for too long. It is high time we redress this imbalance.
Mr. Speaker, I implore my colleagues: Let us rise to the occasion. It
is not enough to express outrage; we must challenge it into action. Let
us wield the power vested in us by the people to enact legislation that
ensures liberty, justice, and equal access to education for all.
This is not an insurmountable task, but a duty we owe to our
constituents, and indeed, to the generations to come after us. Let us
strive to create an America that truly stands as a beacon of justice
and equality, an America that fulfills its promise to all of its
citizens, not just a privileged few.
Only then can we truly say that we have honored the legacy of those
who fought for equality and justice before us. Only then can we ensure
that their struggle was not in vain. Only then can we look into the
eyes of our children and promise them a brighter and fairer future.
This is about the kind of Nation we want to be and the kind of future
we want to leave for those who come after us.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today as both a representative of the people and
a humble servant in the enduring journey toward equality, justice, and
civil rights.
Today, I stand in this chamber, in the aftermath of the Supreme
Court's decision on overturning affirmative action, a fundamental
pillar of our relentless pursuit of racial equity.
Over a century ago, on this very day in 1905, an assembly took place
near the precipice of Niagara Falls, Ontario. But it wasn't convened to
marvel at the natural wonder of Niagara Falls. Instead, it was driven
by the pressing issue of civil rights for all, irrespective of skin
color.
This assembly was led by none other than W.E.B. Du Bois and the
esteemed journalist William Monroe Trotter. The group of more than 50
African American men gathered on the Canadian side of the falls after a
white hotel proprietor refused them lodging. Their meeting birthed the
Niagara Movement, the precursor to the enduring organization we know
today as the National Association for the Advancement of Colored
People, or the NAACP.
The members of the Niagara Movement developed a Declaration of
Principles. This declaration called for ``every single right that
belongs to a freeborn American, political, civil and social,'' and they
vowed that ``until we get these rights we will never cease to protest
and assail the ears of America.''
Today, the words in the Declaration of Principles resonate with even
more urgency in the wake of the Supreme Court's recent decision on
affirmative action. Three principles outlined in the declaration
particularly underline the issue at hand:
First, Economic Opportunity: The Niagara Movement members decried the
denial of equal opportunities, particularly in economic life. They
understood as we do today, that systemic discrimination in the economic
sphere can amount to a form of modern peonage, crushing the aspirations
and potentials of minority communities.
Second, Education: The Niagara Movement championed universal and
compulsory common school education, and access to high school training
for all, and opposed the monopolization of college training by any
class or race. They pushed for federal education aid, particularly in
the South, and an increase in public high school facilities. They
advocated for trade and technical schools for training artisans,
emphasizing the necessity of higher education. These principles echo
the aims of affirmative action--to level the playing field, ensuring
that every American, regardless of race or, class, has access to the
same opportunities.
Third, the Courts: The Niagara Movement called for upright judges in
courts, the abolition of color-based jury selection, equal punishment,
and equal reform efforts for both black and white offenders. Now, we
find ourselves in a moment when these principles seem to reverberate
with even more urgency, as our Supreme Court appears to have lost its
compass with a conservative-leaning and recent scandals of corruption.
This decision on affirmative action serves as a sobering reminder of
our Nation's ongoing struggle for racial justice and equality, and the
urgent need for our institutions to uphold the very principles our
Nation was built upon.
Rather than surrender to this setback, we must draw strength from our
past and press forward. We must reaffirm our commitment to equality,
continue our struggle for justice, and remember that the purpose of
affirmative action always has been, and must remain, to mitigate the
disadvantages that systemic discrimination imposes on our citizens. The
quest for equal opportunities for everyone, regardless of their race,
is a battle that we must not abandon.
Indeed, our fight is formidable, and the road to equality can often
seem daunting. But as we stand here today, honoring our past, we must
remember--we are not the first to undertake this mission, and we
certainly won't be the last. The struggle for civil rights, equality,
and justice, represents our collective pursuit to form a more perfect
union.
Let us find fortitude in our history and the legacy of movements and
individuals that fought before us. From the courageous voices of the
Niagara Movement and the NAACP to pioneers like W.E.B. DuBois and
William Monroe Trotter, we find our inspiration. Armed with their
legacy, let's continue their work, imbued with hope and resilience, to
ensure our journey toward justice remains unyielding.
Mrs. CHERFILUS-McCORMICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Scott), my colleague from Virginia's Third District.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for
yielding. I also thank her and the gentleman from Illinois for talking
about the importance for opportunity and a recognition of the history
of discrimination in the United States.
The Supreme Court has long held that our Nation has a compelling
interest in creating racially diverse college campuses.
Holistic college admissions practices that narrowly tailor the use of
race as one of many factors in evaluating prospective students are a
key to fostering such diversity in a college campus environment.
Such admissions policies not only help the historically underserved
students, research confirms that diverse campuses also provide all
students with a better quality, well-rounded education.
Last month, the Supreme Court decided, with little regard for
precedent, that Harvard's and the University of North Carolina's
pursuit of these compelling interests is unconstitutional.
Regrettably, the Supreme Court's decision is a setback in our effort
to eliminate invidious disparities in access to higher education and an
effort to ensure diverse learning environments for all students.
Now that it is done, it is imperative that we review all other facets
of college admissions that research shows may be racially
discriminatory and have a disparate impact and determine if they, too,
need to be eliminated, given this ruling.
Now, there are admissions factors to take into consideration:
Racially inequitable K-12 schooling opportunities, racially biased
admissions tests, the legacy admissions that have been mentioned, and
other factors that may have a discriminatory impact.
Now, race-conscious affirmative action provides a counterbalance to
these discriminatory practices, but since the Court has invalidated
that balance, we must now review all current admissions practices to
see if they, too, have disparate impact so that we can see whether or
not they are in violation of the Equal Protection Clause or Title VI of
the Civil Rights Act.
To facilitate that review, we must pass the Equity and Inclusion
Enforcement Act. This bill that has been pending for several years
would hold federally funded programs, including schools, accountable
for providing students with equal access to education by restoring a
private right of action for students and parents to bring disparate
impact claims under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act.
Because of a Supreme Court's interpretation about 20 years ago, there
is no longer a private right of action in Title VI cases. Those cases
based on disparate impact must be brought by the Federal Government. So
if there is discrimination going on, the Federal Government has to run
around the country and find it. If it is going on in your community and
you know it, you can't bring that individual case.
[[Page H3201]]
Mr. Speaker, Justice Sotomayor said it best in her dissent when she
said that: ``Ignoring race will not equalize a society that is racially
unequal. What was true in the 1860s, and again in 1954, is true today:
Equality requires acknowledgment of inequality.''
Mrs. CHERFILUS-McCORMICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from
New Jersey (Mr. Payne), my colleague.
Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Florida for
giving me the opportunity to speak on this issue tonight, and I also
thank my colleague, the gentleman from Illinois.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to discuss the U.S. Supreme Court's
horrible decision to reject affirmative action in college admissions.
Last month, the Court ruled that affirmative action programs and
college admissions violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th
Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, but that ruling opposes decades of
Supreme Court decisions that said just the opposite. They said that the
use of race as an admissions factor was consistent with the 14th
Amendment.
In 1978, the Court said that institutions of higher learning had the
right to pursue a diverse student body to advance academic freedom, and
they could consider race as a factor to evaluate college applications
if it was one of many factors.
In 2003, the Court reaffirmed this ruling because student diversity
is a compelling interest in education. In addition, these policies
helped counter the historical racism that denied educational
opportunities to African Americans and other minorities, and it was
working.
In public universities nationwide, minority enrollment increased when
race was one factor of admissions. These minority students equaled or
exceeded the successes of their White peers in a variety of academic
fields when they graduated.
Today, these policies help foster a rich and diverse environment for
all Americans in higher education, and they help minority students
secure higher paying jobs in STEM fields such as engineering and
science.
{time} 2030
However, the Supreme Court has decided that this type of equality is
bad for America. It wants to reject the fact that race has been a
factor in college admissions for decades. Unfortunately, it was used as
the only factor to reject candidates and not one of many factors to
consider when accepting them.
I am outraged that the Supreme Court has rejected a successful policy
that has helped millions of Black and other minority students receive
the quality education they deserve.
At one time, they weren't allowed to enter these schools. What was
the reason? Was it because of many factors that they could not attend
these schools? No. It was one factor--their race.
It is yet another indication of how our country is slowly returning
to a time when equal opportunities were not afforded to all Americans.
The Court said that race-related admission standards violated the Equal
Protection Clause, but where was that Equal Protection Clause during
slavery and Jim Crow? Where is that equal protection today in housing,
workforce hiring, and voting rights?
Conservative Justices and politicians want to pretend that our
country has no racial issues. They are not connected to reality in that
thinking.
This decision is yet another roadblock to success for Black Americans
in this country, but we have overcome them before, and we will overcome
them again. I will continue to fight to help us overcome these
roadblocks wherever we find them, and I will not stop until we have
racial justice and equality for all Americans in this country.
Mrs. CHERFILUS-McCORMICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from
New York (Mr. Bowman).
Mr. BOWMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank Representative Cherfilus-McCormick
for her leadership and for bringing together the CBC this evening to
once again discuss racism in America.
How long are we going to have to have this conversation? It seems
like day after day, month after month, year after year, since 1619, we
have had to have this conversation in some context.
The Supreme Court's decision, unfortunately, is not surprising
because three of our Court Justices were chosen by one of the most, if
not the most, racist Presidents in American history, former President
Donald Trump. He chose three of the Supreme Court Justices. His slogan
is to Make America Great Again, take America back to a time when
African Americans did not have the rights that we have fought for and
died for throughout American history.
Here we go again. This Supreme Court has now become a Supreme Court
that legislates as opposed to a Supreme Court that simply implements
the pillars of our Constitution, the same Supreme Court that rolled
back Roe v. Wade not too long ago, that is now making it easier to
carry concealed weapons in Democrat-led States with strong gun laws
like New York, the same Supreme Court that says it is okay to turn away
LGBTQ customers if you do not want to do work for that particular
demographic.
This Supreme Court has gone rogue, and this Supreme Court has lost
its legitimacy. Look at the reports: members of the Supreme Court
receiving gifts from billionaire donors over the course of their
careers, members of the Supreme Court allowing billionaire conservative
donors to pay for their children's tuition as they attend private
schools.
This is unacceptable. This is unethical. There are members of the
Supreme Court who should immediately resign or be impeached because of
taking these gifts from conservative billionaire donors.
These recent decisions rolling back Roe v. Wade and definitely the
one as it relates to affirmative action are in alignment with MAGA
Republicans and extreme conservative Republicans in our country. Notice
the hypocrisy. Notice the disgusting decision to use the 14th
Amendment, which was designed to protect the civil rights and
citizenship of newly freed slaves. They use that argument to now take
away rights from African Americans as it refers to entry into our most
prestigious institutions.
This decision is going to prohibit millions of African Americans
across this country who are brilliant from receiving the same access
and opportunity as their White peers.
I think all of that is captured in this chart behind me when we look
at the issue of wealth inequality in America. Look at this chart and
the median family wealth gap. The average White family median wealth is
$171,000. Compare that to the average Black family. The median in an
average Black family is $17,409. The average Hispanic family is
$20,920.
It is the consistent attack on Black and Latino communities that
contributes to this wealth gap. It is not just the affirmative action
decision in terms of the higher education institutions of America. It
is also as it relates to employment opportunities, to career
opportunities, to private investment in Black and Latino businesses, to
the Federal budget, and where our money is allocated toward right here
in this body, the United States House of Representatives.
It goes back to the issue of globalization and blue-collar jobs
leaving Black and Brown communities as part of a race to the bottom for
profit based on low-cost labor in other countries. When those factory
jobs left our country and left Black and Latino communities, nothing
replaced those jobs. As a matter of fact, I have misspoken. Something
did replace those jobs: heroin, the numbers game, and crack cocaine
replaced those jobs. Do you know what else replaced those jobs? Law
enforcement.
You take away access and opportunity from a jobs perspective, from an
economic perspective, from a higher education perspective--also, by the
way, because of our support of redlining Black communities, the White
middle class in the 1930s and 1940s was able to buy homes at very low
interest rates, very low cost, move to the suburbs, out of public
housing, and build their wealth. Do you know who was forced to stay in
public housing? African Americans and Latinos. Those communities were
considered devalued, less valuable because of the race of the people
who lived there.
This is historic. This is not just the enslavement of Africans, not
just Jim
[[Page H3202]]
Crow, not just the Black laws, not just the Homestead Act. This is
redlining, the Iran-Contra scandal, and drugs in our community. Now, in
2023, we continue to have these conversations because of the Supreme
Court's recent decision.
I am also here to say that to us in the Congressional Black Caucus
and to African Americans across this country, these setbacks are only
that. They are only setbacks. Each setback makes us stronger, makes us
more powerful, makes us more united, and gives us a deeper sense of
commitment and self-determination as we work to reclaim our Black
sovereignty not just here in America but throughout the African
diaspora, in the Caribbean, on the African Continent, and in Central
and South America.
We don't die; we multiply. We will continue to multiply exponentially
as we weather this storm, grow our enrollment in historically Black
colleges--a shout-out to HBCUs for doing the great work that they do so
that is going to grow.
We also are going to let our voices be heard as we vote with our feet
and go to the polls next year because we have to bring transformational
change to the United States of America. We have to build a nation that
works for everybody, and right now, we do not have that nation.
I will close with this: The Supreme Court has not only revealed its
illegitimacy through receiving gifts from billionaire conservative
donors. We have to look at complete Supreme Court reform as it relates
to ethics reform and ending lifetime appointments.
We also need to look at the size of the Supreme Court. It is time to
expand the Court beyond the nine members. This nine-member Supreme
Court has been in place since 1869. America was 30 million people in
1869. It is now 330 million people, over 10 times the size.
There are 7,000 cases presented to the Supreme Court every single
year. They hear only 80 of them. They do not have the capacity to
respond to the complexity, diversity, and nuance that is American
society today.
It is time for democracy reform, and it begins with the Supreme
Court. It also begins with the electoral college. It also begins with
ending the filibuster. We change all that by voting the right people
into office and getting the wrong ones out of office.
Mrs. CHERFILUS-McCORMICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman
from North Carolina (Mrs. Foushee).
Mrs. FOUSHEE. Mr. Speaker, I thank my esteemed colleague from Florida
for her leadership and this opportunity to speak.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to join my colleagues in condemning the
Supreme Court's decision to roll back decades of judicial precedents
and strike down race-conscious admissions efforts.
Since 1978, the Supreme Court had consistently held that race-based
admission policies in colleges and universities are in the best
interest of educational institutions, but this recent radical decision
will dismantle efforts to ensure higher education is accessible to all
students, further questioning the legitimacy of this politicized
Supreme Court, which seems more eager to protect legacy admissions than
providing students who are historically disadvantaged with equal
opportunity to a quality education.
{time} 2045
Diversity makes our Nation stronger, and the repercussions of this
decision will be felt for generations.
Members of the Congressional Black Caucus stand united in our fight
for a more equitable society, and we will continue to push for equal
opportunity admissions for students across this country.
Mrs. CHERFILUS-McCORMICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman
from California (Ms. Kamlager-Dove), my colleague.
Ms. KAMLAGER-DOVE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Florida
for hosting this important topic.
I rise today to call out the corruption and the hypocrisy of this
Supreme Court. The affirmative action ruling is a total sham.
Justice Clarence Thomas is good at accepting gifts. One gift he
received was the gift of going to Yale Law School, thanks to
affirmative action. He said: ``God only knows where I would be today''
if it were not for affirmative action.
Yet, in this last ruling, he opined that affirmative action was bad
for African Americans because if they got into these institutions, they
would be unable to thrive.
Elite institutions remain the gateways into government, into big
industry, into C-suites. Eight of the nine sitting Justices on this
court either attended Yale or Harvard Law School. In fact, three of the
Justices on this bench are beneficiaries of affirmative action and have
stated it.
Allowing themselves to get into college because of affirmative
action, they got on to the bench because of affirmative action. Both
Democrat and Republican Presidents considered race when selecting them
as nominees for the Supreme Court, appropriately so.
It is about representation. It is about diversity. It is about making
sure that all voices are seen and heard. Affirmative action is more
than just about admissions. It is also about economic progress. But
this ruling has cut generations of students from this critical benefit.
The Court is facing a legitimacy crisis. The Supreme Court is out of
step with reality.
In States that have actually banned affirmative action, schools in
those States have seen a 20 percent reduction in Black applicants and
in Black students. Talk to an admissions counselor. Heck, talk to a
biologist, and they will tell you that homogenous environments do not
thrive. They do not survive.
In an orchestra, you need all kinds of musicians playing all kinds of
instruments in order to make music.
In movies, you need all kinds of characters to tell a story.
On college campuses, you need a diverse campus, of all kinds of
students, to stimulate growth, research, economic development,
innovation and survival.
This ruling goes beyond admissions. It is about the hiring of
faculty. It is about how companies recruit, hire, and retain, and it is
about procurement.
This ruling is divisive. It is hypocritical, and it is out of step
with the American people, just like the Supreme Court.
You know what this ruling does? This ruling says to Black students,
this ruling says to Black children like yours and like mine, that this
Supreme Court doesn't see you and that this Supreme Court doesn't care
about you.
But to our students, to our children, to our students and our
children who are Black, I am here to tell you on behalf of the
Congressional Black Caucus that we see you. We hear you. We are
fighting for you, unlike this Supreme Court. We are not going to stop
fighting, nor will we stop telling the truth about the history of this
country, about this Supreme Court, about this ruling, and about what is
ahead.
Color blind is an aspirational state of mind, but it is not yet
reality. So let's live in reality and talk about what our students are
facing and the hypocrisy that is coming out of this Supreme Court.
Mrs. CHERFILUS-McCORMICK. Mr. Speaker, you have heard from my
distinguished colleagues about affirmative action and issues of great
importance to the Congressional Black Caucus, our constituents,
Congress, and all Americans tonight.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. SEWELL. Mr. Speaker, for centuries, African Americans were
systematically denied the opportunity to pursue a higher education,
build wealth, and achieve financial independence, leaving behind a
painful legacy of discrimination that persists to this day.
Let us not forget. It was in 1963--only six decades ago--when Black
students were finally allowed to enroll alongside their peers at the
University of Alabama.
Almost half of the members serving in this be today were alive at
that time.
Make no mistake--we have made tremendous progress since then. For the
past four decade colleges and universities across this nation have had
the freedom to build student bodies that reflect the diversity of our
great nation.
With the blessing of the Supreme Court, these schools have used
affirmative action policies as a tool to break down educational
barriers for students who would otherwise be left behind.
Tragically, two weeks ago, in an extreme reversal, this Republican-
controlled Court has
[[Page H3203]]
once again chosen to ignore our history and roll back our progress.
By banning affirmative action in college admissions, the Supreme
Court has deprived us of a critical tool in our continued fight for
equality and justice for all.
Not only is this decision a blatant attack on educational
opportunity, it also upends nearly 40 years of precedent, undermining
the sacred trust that the American people have placed in the Court.
From voting rights, to reproductive freedom, to educational
opportunities, this Court has demonstrated time and time again that it
is willing to ignore history, ignore precedent, and ignore common sense
in order to strip away our freedoms and roll back our progress.
Mr. Speaker, we know that ignoring our past will not make it go away.
In the words of Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, ``deeming race
irrelevant in law does not make it so in life.''
If we are going to address the injustices of the past, we must be
intentional about leveling the playing field and providing
opportunities to those who have been left behind.
After all, our entire nation benefits when talented students of
diverse backgrounds get a fair shot at success.
Despite this shameful decision, we must not be deterred. Let this
decision serve as a reminder that progress is elusive, and every
generation must fight to preserve the progress of the past and advance
it.
Now is the time to redouble our efforts and to hold this nation
accountable to its highest ideals of equality and justice for all.
Until every American can enjoy the full promise of our democracy, our
work continues.
Mr. HORSFORD. Mr. Speaker, thank you, Congresswoman Sheila Cherfilus-
McCormick and Congressman Jonathan Jackson, for co-chairing tonight's
Special Order Hour.
I rise today with my colleagues of the Congressional Black Caucus to
address the recent Supreme Court ruling in Students for Fair Admissions
v. Harvard and UNC.
The Supreme Court determined in a 6-3 vote that race-based
affirmative action programs in college admissions processes violated
Title Six of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as well as the Equal
Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
The Supreme Court's decision to strike down decades of precedent set
in the Bakke case in 1978, which gave students--regardless of their
race or ethnicity--a better chance at equal admissions to our nation's
top schools was a needless blow to America's promise of equal and fair
opportunity.
We have to be clear on what this decision means for the legacy of the
Court and what this decision will mean for race-conscious admissions
policies across our country.
By delivering a decision on affirmative action so radical as to deny
young people seeking an education equal opportunity in our education
system, the Supreme Court has thrown into question its own legitimacy.
By imposing these radical changes to college and university race-
based admission policies, the Court has made clear that it does not
stand on the side of dismantling barriers to give our young people the
opportunity at a better life, which will only stand to benefit the
wealthy and well-connected.
Unfortunately, we have seen backlash to progress many times
throughout our Nation's history. During Reconstruction, we had a mere
12 years of Black achievement in policy, politics, the arts and
sciences, and education that were followed by 70 years of state-
sanctioned Jim Crow.
We didn't stop fighting for equality then and we won't stop now
because too much is at stake to allow extremists to turn back the clock
on progress or to use Affirmative Action as a cultural wedge issue.
That is why the CBC is proud to work alongside our Tri-Caucus
colleagues to make clear that we will not be divided because our
Nation's diversity is our greatest strength.
I want to thank my colleagues of the CBC, including Representative
Bobby Scott, Ranking Member of the Education and the Workforce
Committee for their work on this issue and for being united in making
clear that decision does not take the responsibility off of colleges
and universities to do all they can to expand access to educational
opportunities for students coming from underrepresented communities.
The CBC is calling for colleges and universities to not only work
towards diversifying their campuses to more closely reflect America,
but also to reevaluate their legacy admissions programs because while
the Court went so far as to eliminate race-conscious admissions
practices, it did nothing about other determining factors such as
legacy status.
In fact, a lawsuit has been filed against Harvard University, saying
that the legacy admissions programs that give preferential treatment to
the children of wealthy donors and alumni discriminates against
students of color who have the academic merit to attend the school.
As such applicants with donor relationships, athletic recruitments,
employee relationships, and other special recommendations will continue
to receive preferential treatment.
Giving unequal opportunity to an education for legacy admissions
starkly contrasts the message we need to send our young people and
threatens any progress we have made in providing equal access and
diverse learning environments for students across our country.
And while no Nevada institutions of higher education implemented race
consideration in admissions, Nevadans of color who want to attend
schools out of state, like Harvard, MIT, Georgia Tech, or other
schools, will suffer as a result of this decision.
Let me be clear--our students have the merit, academic credentials,
knowledge, and drive to succeed at these schools. But we cannot turn a
blind eye to the history of our nation that has prioritized wealth and
access. At the same time, families of color have battled generations of
discrimination and racism that limited their access to quality
education and wealth building.
This decision specifically exempted military academies. Why?
Race can be a factor when police stop someone on the streets. Why?
But race cannot be a factor in deciding whether someone can pursue a
higher education. Why not?
____________________