In affirmative action and student loan cases, some see backlash to racial progress in education

By Annie Ma and Aaron Morrison

The Associated Press WASHInGTon

As a Black student who was raised by a single mother, Makia Green believes she benefited from a program that gave preference to students of color from economically disadvantaged backgrounds when she was admitted over a decade ago to the University of Rochester.

As a borrower who still owes just over $20,000 on her undergraduate student loans, she has been counting on President Biden’s promised debt relief to wipe nearly all of that away.

Now, both affirmative action and the student loan cancellation plan — policies that disproportionately help Black students — could soon be dismantled by the U.S. Supreme Court. To Ms. Green and many other people of color, the efforts to roll them back reflect a larger backlash to racial progress in higher education.

“I feel like working people have been through enough — I have been through enough,” said Ms. Green, a community organizer. “From a pandemic, an uprising, a recession, the cost of living price going up. I deserved some relief.”

The rulings could also have political consequences among a generation of young voters of color who took Presient Biden at his word when he promised to cancel debt, said Wisdom Cole, director of nAACP’s youth and college program. “Year after year, we have elected officials, we have advocates, we have different politicos coming to our communities making promises. But now it’s time to deliver on those promises,” he said.

The president’s plan forgives up to $10,000 in federal student debt for borrowers, and doubles the debt relief to $20,000 for borrowers who also received Pell Grants. About half of the average debt held by Black and Hispanic borrowers would be wiped out, according to the White House. Six Republicanled states filed a legal challenge questioning whether the president, a Democrat, has authority to forgive the debt.

In the affirmative action cases, the court is considering the use of race-conscious admissions policies that many selective colleges have used for decades to help build diversity on their campuses. The cases were brought by a conservative activist who argues the Constitution forbids the use of race in college admissions.

The high court is expected to rule in each of the cases by the end of June.

Both cases focus on policies that address historic racial disparities in access to higher education, as Black borrowers tend to take on disproportionately more debt to afford college, said Dominique J. Baker, an education policy professor at Southern Methodist University.

Backlash to racial progress tends to follow periods of social control and oppress us.”

In the 1960s and 1970s, many colleges developed affirmative action plans to address the fact that many predominantly white schools struggled to attract people from historically disadvantaged and underrepresented communities. Policies were also created to promote greater inclusion of women.

The Associated Press racial justice.”

The Associated Press

The Justice Department on June 16 issued a scathing assessment of Minneapolis Police, alleging that racial discrimination and excessive force went unchecked before George Floyd’s killing because of inadequate oversight and an unwieldy process for investigating complaints.

The probe began in April 2021, a day after former officer Derek Chauvin, who is white, was convicted of murder and manslaughter in the May 25, 2020, killing of Mr. Floyd, a Black man. Mr. Floyd, who was in handcuffs, repeatedly said he couldn’t breathe before going limp as the officer knelt on his neck for 9½ minutes. The killing was recorded by a bystander and sparked months of mass protests as part of a broader national reckoning over racial injustice.

Here are six takeaways from the report:

What was the purpose of the investigation?

The focus of the probe was to examine whether there has been a pattern or practice of unconstitutional or unlawful policing in the Minneapolis Police Department. It examined the use of force by officers, including during protests, and whether the department engages in discriminatory practices. It also looked at the handling of misconduct allegations, treatment of people with behavioral health issues and systems of accountability.

What were the key findings?

Investigators found numerous examples of excessive force, unlawful discrimination and First Amendment violations. They reviewed 19 police shootings and determined that officers sometimes fired without first determining whether there was an immediate threat of harm to the officers or others.

In 2017, for example, an officer fatally shot Justine Ruszczyk Damond, an unarmed white Australian-born woman who “spooked” him when she approached his squad car, according to the report. She had called 911 to report a possible rape behind her house. The city paid $20 million to settle with her family.

In another case, officers shot a suspect after he started stabbing himself in the neck in a police station interview room.

Officers also used neck restraints like the one Derek Chauvin used on Mr. Floyd 198 times between Jan. 1, 2016, and Aug. 16, 2022, including 44 instances that didn’t require an arrest. Some officers continued to use neck restraints even after they were banned in the wake of Mr. Floyd’s killing, the report said.

At protests, it found, people were sometimes shot with rubber bullets when they were committing no crime or were dispersing.

According to the report, one journalist was hit by a rubber bullet and lost her eye, while another was shoved to the pavement while filming and pepper-sprayed in the face. One protester was shoved so hard that she fell backward, hit the pavement and lay unconscious for three minutes.

What did investigators find about racial bias in policing?

The report documented rampant racism and racial profiling in the department, with Black drivers more than six times more likely to be stopped than white drivers.

The racism also extended to arrests.

When one Black teen was held at gunpoint for allegedly stealing a $5 burrito, the teen asked the plainclothes officer if

Makia Green stands outside her Washington home on June 12. As a Black student who was raised by a single mother, Ms. Green believes she benefited from a program that gave preference to students of color from economically disadvantaged backgrounds when she was admitted over a decade ago to the University of Rochester. As a borrower who still owes just more than $20,000 on her undergraduate student loans, she has been counting on President Biden’s promised debt relief to wipe nearly all that away. Now, both affirmative action and the student loan cancellation plan — policies that disproportionately help Black students — could soon be dismantled by the U.S. Supreme Court. change and advancement, Dr. Baker said. In a study published in 2019, Dr. Baker and her co-authors found states were more likely to adopt bans on affirmative action when white enrollment at public flagship universities dropped.

“These are policy tools that have an explicit aim around reducing the power of white supremacy,” Dr. Baker said. The two court challenges, she said, can be seen “as linked backlash to two attempts toward

Ms. Green, who grew up in a low-income household in Harlem, n.H., graduated from Rochester with about $40,000 in federal loan debt. Some of that was erased under a public service forgiveness program when she completed two terms with Americorps, and she whittled it down further with monthly installments until the government paused repayment due to the pandemic. Ms. Green said she sees both court cases as connected to conservative attacks on diversity, equity and inclusion programs. Critics say opposition to such programs is rooted in questions of fairness and in white grievances over the advancement of nonwhite people.

“This is white supremacy at work,” Ms. Green said. “This is a long tactic of conservative, white supremacist-leaning groups to use education and limit Black people’s access to education, as a way to further

Since the late 1970s, the Supreme Court has three times upheld affirmative action in college admissions on grounds that institutions have a compelling interest to address past discrimination that shut nonwhite students out of higher learning. Justices have also agreed with arguments that more diverse student bodies promoted crossracial understanding. But with the Supreme Court skewing more ideologically conservative, some former students and advocates worry how a ruling against affirmative action might affect diversity on campuses.

Tarina Ahuja, a rising senior at Harvard College, said being part of a diverse student body has been a crucial part of her undergraduate experience. She recalled classes where students discussed their lived experiences on topics such as police violence, colonialism and labor movements — discussions that would have fallen flat without a diverse range of student perspectives.

“The decision is going to very likely be something that is scary to a lot of us,” she said.