Philos Issue 5

Schott: Before joining the Schott Foundation, you litigated civil rights issues under California’s Proposition 209 and held the role of the Vice President for Inclusive Excellence at California State University-Sacramento. Given your unique vantage point, how do you feel SFFA v. Harvard will affect higher education, both in terms of the letter of the law and universities’ broader institutional cultures?

Diana Tate Vermeire: SFFA v. Harvard will have a profound impact on higher ed because the internal discussions have shifted further away from directly addressing root causes to more of a defensive posture. Others are taking an aggressive posture, namely, those opposed to equitable access or the celebration of identities and lived experiences, have ramped up their advocacy of regressive policies.

Those of us committed to equity and justice will need to tap into our continued resolve and provide strength to one another to continue our long-fought struggle. Crafting policies and practices to address racism without one of the most direct and honest paths — explicitly mentioning race — will be more difficult, but far from impossible. Vision and creativity are needed now more than ever.

The letter of the law is only narrowly construed to prohibit race-conscious decision making in university admissions (with the notable exception of military institutions). However, many are already using this decision to advocate for changes that go far beyond its reach.

Therein lies the true damage of the decision, which is the chilling effect and fear that it may place on those who seek to comply with the decision – as ill-founded and unjust as it may be – while also trying to advance towards equity and justice in all aspects of life in the United States.

I am concerned that the impact will lead to regressive practices throughout university operations, whether it be related directly to admission, or more broadly to cultural competence in the lecture halls; affinity/identity spaces, clubs, and organizations on campus; university sponsored or supported programming or speakers; and institutional decision making related to allocations of budgets, resources, campus space, recruitment and retention of underrepresented faculty and staff, among many others.

Despite all this, I am confident in the commitment of like-minded individuals and colleagues who will continue to advocate for and ensure equitable access, inclusive practices, and the mitigation of historic and present discrimination and oppression. We have seen this dynamic already in places like California, Michigan, and others, and there is much we can learn from those experiences.

Schott: A lot of ink has already been spilled analyzing the Court’s decision. Through your own reading of the opinion and coverage you have read, what are some of the key takeaways that philanthropy should keep an eye on in the short term?

Tate Vermeire: Philanthropy should be clear that the immediate impact of the decision on affirmative action is limited to race-conscious admissions decisions in higher education and nothing more.

Yet, we must also be clear that the efforts to undercut or dismantle race-conscious decision making will not stop with higher education. It will expand out into many facets of life in the United States and those efforts have already begun.

In the short term, philanthropy must implement and develop new tools designed to address inequity, structural racism, and the enduring legacy of white supremacy. We must do so strategically with the understanding that challenges will eventually come, and with the creativity to develop and test new approaches that affirm race-consciousness as well as those that advance equity and justice by other methodologies.

Schott: The concurring opinion by Justice Gorsuch suggests a willingness by at least some on the court to expand their interpretation of the anti-discrimination section to other titles of the Civil Rights Act — including Title VI, which covers any programs that receive federal funding. In the face of further potential dangers on the horizon, how can funders use this moment to lean into bolder strategies rather than fall back on our heels?

Tate Vermeire: There are many who want the SFFA v. Harvard decision to be the decisive moment when the United States begins to systematically roll back its commitment to equal opportunity.

If we are not careful, it will be the defining moment for the erasure of our efforts to ensure full access and opportunity to all.

At minimum, funders should stay the course and remain committed to their own organization’s diversity, equity and inclusion efforts but also in their grantmaking, investment strategies and decision making. In doing so, funders should assess their processes and practices in order to mitigate as much risk as possible, while still executing on your commitment to racial justice and equity.

Resist the urge to allow your efforts or advocacy to be chilled by the threat posed by the Supreme Court or others who are committed to dismantling the levers of progress.

If funders want to be bold in this moment, they will fund grassroots movement builders and organizations committed to racial justice: supporting those community voices and perspectives often left out of solving our most pressing problems, despite being the ones most directly impacted.

In the face of harmful decisions handed down from the top, let us fuel resilience and renewal from the bottom up.

In funding these groups, grantmakers can be doing so in at least three ways:

• First, provide general operating funds with as few – if any – requirements and limitations on how funds will be used, allowing for the greatest flexibility and responsiveness.
• Second, provide support to ensure the health and wellbeing of advocates, often in direct confrontation with those who seek to further oppress and marginalize them.
• Third, make grants in collaboration with others and set aside resources to defend against the kinds of legal challenges the Gorsuch concurrence portends. Where possible, proactively advance legal and legislative strategies to neutralize and head off those attacks.

Many leaders at all levels of philanthropy are committed to these efforts and are building community and developing strategies to advance these efforts. Now is the time to join together and double down on equity, inclusion, opportunity, and justice considering these attempts to turn back progress.