Message From the Student Editorial Board
Prejudice Over Evidence
As a law student passionate about advancing equity, the recent decisions in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard and Students for Fair Admissions v. University of North Carolina striking down affirmative action spark deep concern for the future of environmental advocacy and the broader legal field. Colleges have never shied away from using factors other than “intelligence” to accept or reject applicants. There are many different factors by which admission committees at colleges and universities assess prospective students. For example, some colleges value sport prowess over test scores, or give significant weight to a student’s legacy status. So, why then are we now at a point where we single out one of these factors—race—and declare it unconstitutional? Since the 1960s, the diversity of scholars has been an issue that higher education struggled—and, at times, failed—to support. But the reality is that racial diversity—especially in academic spaces—benefits everyone. Study after study shows that diversity helps people from every background by promoting critical thinking and strengthening law school communities and law firms.
As documented in public polling and underscored by the identity of plaintiffs in Hopwood (1996), Grutter (2003), and Fisher (2012), white women constitute one of the largest segments of the populace opposed to diversity initiatives in higher education. Ironically, this demographic is also the one that benefits the most from affirmative action. They are discriminated against over white men, but still given more advantages than women of color. No matter the reasoning, the data is sound when we analyze who receives the most advantages from affirmative action.
The recent Supreme Court decisions in the Students for Fair Admissions cases will inevitably activate a chilling effect across campuses nationwide, with admissions office and school employees scared to take race into account when not only accepting students, but also when providing funding or diversifying academic spaces. In providing rejected applicants or students who are reasonably denied law review membership legal pathways, the court has all but guaranteed that academic centers focus more on keeping those applicants and students happy instead of cultivating space for everyone to learn. Not only that, but it will most certainly be students with wealth and influence who have already been handed great opportunities, who will bully administrators and sue schools to get their way.
Opportunities for racially underrepresented students to succeed in higher education, including law school, should be enhanced—not diminished. In adherence to Bollinger, admissions offices evaluated applicants holistically, meaning that an applicant’s race was not a determining factor in acceptance or rejection for decades. Thus, one student’s acceptance as part of a university’s efforts to increase the diversity of its student body does not deprive another student of admission on the basis of race.
Not only that, we as law students and lawyers should strive to welcome new definitions of success to our field. Access to elite institutions places the onus on a singular vision of success. Success does not fit into neat definitions but varies widely from person to person. Depending on the person, success could mean having a large family and reliable group of friends, achieving financial stability, or maintaining one’s sobriety.
Diversity plays an important role in success. People’s lives get better as a whole when we value, celebrate, and learn from the accomplishments and intellect of others with different viewpoints. Everyone’s. Not just those who have been marginalized or come from a disadvantageous background. Interactions across differences call on us to improve as individuals. At what point do we grow up and relearn the selflessness that children inherently possess? Instead of asking whether doing something will help us individually, we should also be considering whether it will hurt others.
To create a better experience for future and current environmental lawyers, we should strive to cultivate selflessness, empower new understandings of success, and foster inclusive and diverse campuses and legal organizations. As law students and lawyers, we should shun mentalities that divide and instead adopt a new motto of camaraderie: “If I am going up, I am taking you with me.”
Priscila Galambos
Student Co-Editor-in-Chief
Albany Law School, Class of 2024
Priscila Galambos is a rising 3L at Albany Law School with interests in criminal and international law. She hopes to become an advocate for victims of human trafficking.
