On June 29th, the Supreme Court ruled against Harvard College and the University of North Carolina, declaring it unconstitutional to consider race in college admissions decisions. Following the Court’s landmark 6-3 decision, University President Christopher Eisgruber released a statement to the Princeton community denouncing the case’s outcome.
Eisgruber remarked that the opinion is “unwelcome and disappointing” and a “regrettable decision.” He also affirmed his view that “diversity is essential to the excellence of this University and to the future of our country and the world,” promising that the University will continue to “pursue it with energy, persistence, and a determination to succeed despite the restrictions imposed by the Supreme Court.” Portraying the decision as an impediment that will “make our work more difficult,” he expressed the University’s commitment to “work vigorously to preserve—and, indeed, grow—the diversity of our community while fully respecting the law as announced today.”
Eisgruber’s words echo his January State of the University letter, in which he pledged that the University would “be creative and persistent in our efforts to preserve and build upon the diversity of our scholarly and educational community” if the court ultimately “imposes new restrictions upon us.”
In his June 29 statement, Eisgruber did not disclose how the University will pursue diversity in the admissions process without violating the Court’s decision, but he relayed that “Princeton has been preparing for this possibility with assistance and advice from legal counsel” given that the Court’s opinion was “not unexpected.”
Following Eisgruber’s statement, many Princeton-affiliated bodies shared statements of their own, affirming a commitment to diversity and denouncing the Court’s opinion.
Dean Amaney Jamal of Princeton’s School of Public and International Affairs (SPIA) called the decision “disheartening” but told students and faculty to “rest assured” that “the School of Public and International Affairs remains committed to its mission of increasing diversity, equity, and inclusion among the SPIA community.” Jamal also re-shared President Eisgruber’s remarks alongside her own to “underscore my support of the following message that President Christopher Eisgruber sent the campus community earlier this afternoon.”
Dean Rodney Priestley of Princeton’s Graduate School sent a similar message to its students, writing: “I echo President Eisgruber’s disappointment in today’s opinion, and I applaud the University’s commitment to continue to vigorously pursue diversity while fully respecting the law as announced today.” Priestley went on to emphasize how “critical” the cultivation of a “diverse student body” is to the University, arguing that it is “necessary to the University’s mission.”
The James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions voiced an alternate perspective to the public stances taken by many Princeton subsidiary bodies and universities across the nation in the wake of the decision. Professor Robert P. George, Princeton’s McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence and Director of the James Madison Program, issued a statement affirming the importance of discourse and open dialogue. “Someone might ask: As an academic unit of Princeton University devoted to the study of American ideals and institutions, where does the James Madison Program stand on the matter? The answer is that the James Madison Program takes no stand,” George wrote.
While he acknowledged that members of the program – including himself – have strong perspectives on the case and its surrounding issues, he emphasized that “All are welcome in the Madison Program irrespective of one’s beliefs about race-conscious admissions and hiring or other issues that divide honorable Americans. There are no orthodoxies and no heresies.” George encouraged readers to explore the decision and thoughtfully evaluate the merits of each side on their own, imploring the James Madison Program community not to “let this decision be yet another occasion for people to demonize those of their fellow citizens whose opinions do not square with their own—whatever their own may be.”
George concluded his remarks with a call for unity, writing that “what unites us is not ideology or politics, but a shared desire to explore constitutional and other fundamental questions concerning our civic order in a truth-seeking spirit.” He concluded: “the [Court’s] opinions model vigorous—indeed passionate—yet civil and respectful disagreement…[our country] needs more of that today.”
(photo courtesy of Wikimedia Commons)
Copyright © 2024 The Princeton Tory. All rights reserved.