Whenever social issues make it to the Supreme Court, national policy falls into the hands of a group of oddly-clothed arbiters, all of whom differ in their readings of the U.S. Constitution. At first glance, this phenomenon might lend credence to a certain interpretation of history, one known as the “Great Individuals” thesis. According to such a view, ideological battles among the elites determine human progress. Meanwhile, the masses sit as hapless observers, awaiting Decrees From On High to spell out their destinies.
Since closed, undemocratic meetings govern the United States’ major decisions, it merits asking: do the people, or does the ruling class, truly make history?
To find our answer, let’s examine Fisher vs. University of Texas, a recent case with momentous implications.
Abigail Fisher claims that the University of Texas rejected her on the basis of racial discrimination, since “less qualified” students of color supposedly received preferential treatment.
In reality, Fisher’s high school grades, rather than her skin color, played the decisive role. The University of Texas automatically admits pupils who score in the top 10 percent of their class rankings; Fisher fell into the 12th percentile, which relegated her to a process of “holistic review.” This evaluation includes race as one factor among many, in an attempt to combat decades of institutional barriers faced by candidates of color.
Therefore, Fisher’s attempt to single out “affirmative action” as the primary factor was selective at best, and a prime example of white chauvinism at worst. The popular hashtag #BeckyWithTheBadGrades captures this with particular wit.
However, in a 4-3 decision, the Supreme Court upheld the University’s race-conscious admissions criteria. But where did this victory really come from: the halls of official power, or years of grassroots struggle against systemic racism?
History tells the story with utmost clarity. The first recorded notions of “affirmative action” date back to the Reconstruction era. Although slavery had been formally abolished, “freedom” for Black laborers remained sorely lacking. Proposals emerged for various forms of redress, but met with sharp resistance from white establishment politics. Still, these attempts sowed the seeds for the century of upheaval to come.
Almost 100 years later, the Civil Rights Movement renewed calls for progressive reforms in educational and workplace opportunities. Since then, hundreds of protests and demonstrations, alongside over a dozen courtroom battles, have only gradually made strides against white supremacy’s vast network of mechanisms.
So when the eight judges of the Supreme Court sat down to review Fisher vs. UT, they read through legal briefs prepared by a long list of uncredited authors: the hundreds of millions whose conversations and direct actions gave birth to any semblance of racial justice in this country.
As with our past triumphs, future blows against white supremacy will only come from active sources of popular struggle. Much work remains to be done, both in terms of reforming the present structures and paving the way for socialism, which is the only societal form that can stomp out racism permanently. None of these tasks can be accomplished by waiting for the ruling class to grant us favors; our movement depends on the vital participation of the oppressed majority.
To quote Mao who himself fought against the notion that Great Individuals ultimately shape society:
“The people, and the people alone, are the motive force in the making of world history.”
