The time has come since the U.S. Supreme Court declared affirmative action to be illegal at both private and public institutions, Alaskans on the forefront of diversity initiatives have been studying the impact.
In her many years of the public sector, State Senator. Elvi Gray-Jackson has fought against the discrimination of race. She said that the affirmative action decision of the court was a heart-wrenching blow to African Americans.
“It was awe-inspiring,” Gray-Jackson said. “We’re returning to the past rather than moving ahead.”
The state senator has said that she was concerned about employers who apply the reasoning of the court on the workplace.
“Folks have been marginalized for a long time. This will only cause more harm,” Gray-Jackson said.
The 29th of June the supreme court decided in favor of Harvard as well as the University of North Carolina’s admissions rules are unlawful with a majority of 6-3 declaring that they violate Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.
The decision isn’t affecting any aspect of the University of Alaska system because of its policy on open admissions that means almost every student who applies is admitted.
However, Diane Hirshberg, director of the university’s Institute of Social and Economic Research She said she is disturbed by the widespread support for the ruling party troubling.
“One of the worries I have with the anger toward affirmative action is that people don’t understand what it’s trying rectify,” said Hirshberg, who believes that opponents misunderstand affirmative action is intended to remove something from one group and give it to a different group.
“What we’re trying do is to create an environment that accepts everyone and assists everyone in achieving their goals by meeting their needs,” she said.
Hirshberg declared that affirmative action level the playing field, not just race. People overlook that women of color have had more advantages than other people.
In the case of Alaska Native corporations, which have a significant investment in education, this decision is dissuading. Since their creation fifty years ago, twelve regional corporations have given out greater than 100 million worth of scholarships. That’s not even including village-based corporations such as those of the Ukpeagvik Inupiat Corporation in Utqiagvik.
The president and CEO of UIC Pearl Brower said the corporation has grown to encompass 60 companies.
“We employ around 3,600 employees across almost every state of the country,” Brower said.
A lot of these jobs, she explained include Alaska Natives and includes executives who attended prestigious universities. Brower fears that the court’s decision could reverse the gains made by Native employment.
“No regardless of where you go you will never see any Indigenous person at the top of the list. They’re already underrepresented,” she said.
Yet Brower has seen significant advancement in her life. Prior to her appointment as president of Ukpeagvik she was the head of Ilisagvik College – and most recently, she was in charge of the University of Alaska’s diversity initiatives for Alaskan Natives.
“At the base that, what all this is doing is to offer more opportunities to everyone,” said Brower. Brower said that this is not just to minorities but also the majority of people, who can broaden their perspectives by being exposed to new methods of thinking and acting.
Rosita Worl, the head of Sealaska Heritage Institute, a non-profit subsidiary from the Sealaska Corporation, said research suggests that diversity can foster open-mindedness and creativity, which is which is a benefit for businesses that require employees who are comfortable interacting across cultures.
In the following of the ruling Worl expects college admissions to minorities, such as those from Alaska, to decrease.
“To myself, it’s impossible to comprehend how this is what the Supreme Court did that,” Worl said.
However, she is happy with the court’s decision from last month to confirm the Indian Child Welfare Act.
“The people who brought the case claimed it was discrimination based on race,” Worl said. “But it was the Supreme Court ruled, no there was no discrimination based on race since the rights we enjoy are rights that are protected by the law.”
Worl claimed that the rights of political parties might have an impact on the affirmative action ruling of the court. She added that Sealaska attorneys have already begun an intensive review of the law on behalf of students receiving scholarships. She added that 450 students are currently receiving Sealaska Corporation scholarships at more than 180 vocational and academic schools.
“I’m optimistic that we’ll be successful in getting the word out to colleges due to our status as a political entity affirmative action is able to be used for Native American admissions to colleges,” Worl said.
Alex Cleghorn, an attorney and chief operating officer at the Alaska Native Justice Center, was awed by Worl’s work.
“It’s an interesting look at the current situation,” he said.
Cleghorn claimed that it’s still to be determined if Native American political status can be linked to affirmative action. He is concerned about the possible interpretations that the courts might make of their decision and its impact on programs for equal opportunity.
“I am aware that I gained from not only admissions to this program, but also the additional support for achieving success at the school system,” stated Cleghorn the student who has Supiaq family heritage.
Cleghorn stated that it’s not safe to predict what the the future Supreme Court rulings will go. However, he added it’s a bit gruesome to watch the same court make two rulings that are completely different.
“This is the case all through history,” Cleghorn said. “So it is true that this is the exact U.S. Supreme Court that was the one to decide Brown the case of Brown. Board of Education was the same Supreme Court that decided Tee-Hit-Ton in the Southeast.”
Although in 1954, the Brown decision banned segregation of race, Cleghorn said the court’s 1955 Tee-Hit-Ton ruling was clearly racist, and that it did not just deny Lingits the right to compensation from their land, and also the sale to them of the timber they harvested, it also it was written in a language that was infused with prejudice.
Cleghorn was quoted in Justice Stanley Reed’s major opinion
“Every American schoolboy knows that the savage tribes that populate this continent were taken from their ancestral territories through force. When the Indians surrendered vast areas via treaty, in exchange for food, blankets, and trinkets, it wasn’t an offer, but the will of the conquerors that stripped the land of their ancestors,” he read.
Cleghorn claimed that Cleghorn said that the Supreme Court, both then and today has moments that enthrall as well as others that stir shame.
