Essay Assignments For SCOTUS

I have a few suggestions….

“Nothing in this opinion should be construed as prohibiting universities from considering an applicant’s discussion of how race affected his or her life, be it through discrimination, inspiration, or otherwise.”

The New York Times described this as “leaving a path open” to consideration of race among college applicants. And all week-end long, panels on MSNBC and CNN have been discussing how institutions can make use of this essay-based “loophole.”

Except for a brief remark by the always astute Elie Mystal, I haven’t seen any discussion of how condescending and insulting this “path” is, or—ironically—how race-biased (not to mention class-biased) it is.

These essays are supposed to give prospective students a chance to make their case for admittance outside the stark (and only seeming) “objectivity” of test scores and grade point averages: “Here’s who I am, and here’s why you should want me at your school.” The essay is, in theory, a chance to more fully describe ones passions, ambitions, and experiences and perhaps to show off ones abilities as a writer. “Let me tell you about the year I discovered Russian literature…” “As long as I can remember, I didn’t want to become a small-town doctor. Then….” “My animal-rights activism began when….” “My idol is Susan Sontag….” “The day my mom put me on a horse changed the course of my life…” “My religion has always been central to my identity…”“I stood in front of the 3rd grade class room, the page my poem was written on limp from sweat…”

Oh, but you’re Black and you want to get into Harvard? Better write about that inspiring teacher you had, or how your single mom held down three jobs so you could go to the best private high-school in town. And make sure to be subtle about the fact that your mom is Black.

You want to write about Existentialism, but you interpret it very much from the perspective of what DeBeauvoir calls “the Other”? You say you’re a history buff, and would like to write about 1619? Those are a bit risky, as Roberts warns against personal statements as a “backdoor way” of identifying race. What schools may do is give students credit for showing “courage and determination” for overcoming racial discrimination. So just make sure to paint yourself into an underprivileged, up-by-the-bootstraps cliche. And stay away from anything that smacks of “critical race theory.”

The essay “path” doesn’t square very well with Justice Thomas’s rejoinder to Justice Jackson’s dissent, which he blasted as drawing on “race-based stereotypes.” “All racial groups are heterogeneous,” he insisted, “and Blacks are no exception — encompassing Northerners and Southerners, rich and poor, and recent immigrants and descendants of slaves.”

But the day is past when we could depend on a modicum of consistency, or reason, or factual integrity—or even an understanding of the Constitution—from the court.

In that vein, I have a few essay assignments myself. Feel free to contribute your own suggestions!!

Justice Thomas should be required to write an essay on how “race-neutral” his appointment to the Supreme Court was. He should be required as part of that essay to explain his use of the terms “high-tech lynching” and “uppity Black” during his confirmation hearing. At the conclusion of his essay, he should address the argument that invoking these images was (in his own words about race-based considerations) “an insult” to his “individual achievement.” He should be specific about how much attention was paid to his “achievements” during the hearings.

Justice Roberts should be required to write an essay on why military academies, who are exempt from the ban on race-based considerations, “depend on” training leaders who are “both highly qualified and racially diverse” (because they will be serving racially diverse communities) but the same doesn’t apply to civilian universities. He should be required to demonstrate that doctors, lawyers, and university professors (among many other professions requiring advanced education) do not serve “racially diverse” clientele.

Justice Gorsuch should be required to write on essay entitled “Imaginary Threats to Artistic Freedom in the Baking of Cakes and Designing of Websites” ¹ In his essay, he might also address how a coach holding a prayer session with his team as video cameras look on can be construed as a “short, private, personal prayer.” He should conclude his essay with a defense of the notion of “alternative realities.”

All six “conservative” justices should be required to write an essay on how students can write effective essays on how race has affected their lives unless schools continue to teach about the history and structural inequalities of racism in the U.S.

All six “conservative” justices should be required to write an essay justifying (1) legacy admissions (2) athletic recruitment. Their essays should be on strictly constitutional grounds, without reference to funding or donor considerations. Their essays should respond to the charge that athletic recruitment in the “Ivy League” is race-biased: “In 2018, the Atlantic reported that 65 percent of Ivy League athletes and 79 percent of Division III New England Small Collegiate Athletic Conference athletes are white.” In their essays, they should also show why “niche sports” (sometimes colloquially called “country club sports”) such as fencing, lacrosse, crew, sailing, ice hockey, water polo, and squash are not examples of persistent racial inequities in athletic recruitment.

These four should each write a “personal essay” explaining why they lied in confirmation hearings about Roe V. Wade.

All white men applying to college or university should be required to write an essay detailing how they are not beneficiaries of racial privilege.

Justice Alito should be required to write an essay on why ancient and medieval texts are more authoritative than the Constitution on the abortion issue.

Every fetus should be required to write an essay on why they have a “right to life.”

1. The Supreme Court does not have jurisdiction to decide hypothetical cases. As a unanimous Supreme Court held in Texas v. United States (1998), “a claim is not ripe for adjudication if it rests upon ‘contingent future events that may not occur as anticipated, or indeed may not occur at all.’“ So the Court should have told (web-designer) Lori Smith to go away and come back when she had a real dispute with the state of Colorado. (https://www.vox.com/scotus/2023/6/30/23779816/supreme-court-lgbtq-ruling-neil-gorsuch-303-creative-elenis)