Alli Myatt is the Co-founder of The Equity Practice, and a Public Voices Fellow through The OpEd Project. She holds a bachelor’s degree from Cornell University, and an MBA from the Wharton School of Business.
The recent U.S. Supreme Court decision declaring affirmative action programs that use race- conscious rating systems unconstitutional is like a game of chess.
It offers an opportunity to completely overhaul admissions to be more liberatory and serve the students and society better.
Growing up, my brother tried to teach me how to play chess by revealing the basics a little at a time. After I would move a piece, he would reveal another rule that would allow him to capture one of my pieces and take him one step closer to beating me at the game. He clearly designed the conditions for play so he could win. I quickly declared the game over because he was making the rules to advantage himself.
Similarly, it is necessary to declare "game over" for the current approach to elite university admissions. The SCOTUS decision inspired outrage and condemnation.
But it is crucial to not return to what was. The current admissions process was rigged from its inception to advantage rich, white people and the current model does not even predict success in school.
Audre Lorde wrote, “For the master's tools will never dismantle the master's house. They may allow us temporarily to beat him at his own game, but they will never enable us to bring about genuine change.” It's time to redesign these processes with new tools.
The original intention still affects Harvard. Its legacy admission policies benefit the wealthiest in our nation.
This is not just about Harvard; other elite institutions such as Princeton, Yale, and Duke universities as well as Massachusetts Institute of Technology have similar legacies. A 2017 study by economist Raj Chetty showed there were more students from families in the top 1 percent of income earners than students from the bottom 50 percent at elite colleges.
Lest someone argue admissions should focus on class and not race, it is important to note that the top 1 percent of income earners are over 90 percent white. As SCOTUS Justice Ketanji Jackson Brown stated in her dissent in the Affirmative Action Case, “Deeming race irrelevant… does not make it so in life.”
It is devastating to see the level of dismay of students of color, realizing the highest court in the land deemed them unwelcome at elite colleges and that they may buy into the lie that the only reason they could get into these schools is because of their race.
As a Black former student who attended two Ivy League colleges during my academic career, I know what it's like to have your accomplishments diminished and discounted due to your race despite evidence of your qualifications.
I also worked in admissions and have been in the rooms when these decisions are being made. I can confirm unequivocally that students of color who are admitted are extraordinary, accomplished and 100 percent deserve to be there.
As Toni Morrison once said, “The very serious function of racism is distraction. It keeps you from doing your work. It keeps you explaining, over and over again, your reason for being… None of this is necessary. There will always be one more thing.”
Students deserve an admissions process that does not distract them from their brilliance and results in the equitable outcomes our society desperately needs.
Administrators, faculty, funders, policy makers and all stakeholders need to support colleges and universities to educate all future leaders. Society benefits when leaders reflect the entire community.
To be sure, some may name the alleged harm that happens to Asian students as a result of Affirmative Action, though several Asian leaders have refuted these claims. This SCOTUS case was bought by a white man, and no Asian student testified on his behalf.
These tactics pitting one group against another are attempts to separate people of color from each other and keep them from acting in solidarity to create admissions practices where all students can shine.
Higher education institutions need to be anti-racist. This is possible by identifying what qualities contribute to student learning and the many ways that students might demonstrate those qualities in a holistic way.
It is urgent to abolish the measures that advantage the privileged and wealthy. Society will be more just if enrollment efforts are not a rigged game and administrators find ways to see brilliance in more places and bring those students together to learn from each other.
That is a win-win.
U.S. President Donald Trump boards Air Force One on August 14, 2026 at Joint Base Andrews, Maryland. Trump is traveling to Long Island to tour law enforcement facilities in Nassau County and rally support for local Republican candidates ahead of the upcoming midterm elections
Travel Far Enough, You Meet Yourself
Is it possible that our President has simply not traveled enough?
Born and raised in Queens and attending Fordham University in the Bronx, Donald Trump has no record of traveling outside New York until he was over 20, when he transferred to a college in the neighboring state of Pennsylvania. Were his formative years amiss, then, in his learning about other places and other people?
Is his view akin to the famous New Yorker cover by Saul Steinberg, an illustration of the United States with New York City as the epicenter of the country and the Hudson River the border of the known world? We can now at least add Washington, D.C., and Mar-a-Lago to the map of “the realm.”
Our President has now traveled some, but what we recommend is another kind of travel. Not a state-sponsored trip or a venture to scout locations for future Trump Towers. This would be a genuine travel experience, enriching and eye-opening, showcasing other cultures and ways of living.
It will extend far beyond viewing military parades, hobnobbing with such “understanding” world leaders as Kim Jong Un, or taking tea with the King.
WHERE, then, should the President go? As Elon Musk’s Starship spacecraft is not yet ready to take passengers to Mars, perhaps he could explore our own vast country?
Maybe he could travel to “flyover country,” the farming states, where his ying-yanging tariffs and trade restrictions have played havoc with rural economies. Or possibly to California, number one in homeless U. S. citizens, and while there, regale homeless veterans (approximately 32,500 nationwide) with tales of his brave exploits invading and bombing foreign countries.
Or he might tour the Great Lakes, and rename the other four?
WHEN should he go? This will be tough, as he is very busy building his ballroom and renaming bodies of water.
How about a trip in early November, around the midterm elections? Despite the long-discredited accusation of widespread voter fraud, it would be reassuring to know he might be so caught up divvying out ladles of soup in a soup kitchen somewhere that he wouldn’t remember to deploy the military for “election security.”
HOW will he travel? He should definitely not take his Qatari-donated, newly renovated 747, especially after last time, when he had to be smuggled off clandestinely in a catering truck. It’s unlikely any traveling companions, like the Secretary of State or of the Treasury, are going to fall for the ruse a second time. Besides, we may need those people. No more decoys!
Perhaps the President could fly commercially, although this likely would expose him to undue suffering. Without gold bathroom fixtures and maple wood floors, the trip will be no “Luxury Experience.” If only he still had his “Trump Shuttle,” bought with a massive loan he later defaulted on, saying then, “I’m smart. I got out at a good time.”
Considering the potential pitfalls, maybe it’s best the President travel incognito, disguised perhaps as an elderly woman wearing a lot of bronzer.
Wherever, whenever, however: our President needs a vacation.
Moreover, we need a vacation from him.
If the President refuses our travel suggestions, here’s another idea:
Let’s get him a pet! He has never owned a pet. As we know with our children, pets teach essential life lessons: compassion and empathy; they instill a sense of responsibility. There is a well-established connection between those who can care for a pet and those who can care for people.
So, which pet should we choose? A puppy? A kitten? A boa constrictor?
Imagine, the President may even decide he likes having a pet. After all, what is more obedient than a well-trained dog, besides possibly the Cabinet? And what is more docile than a sweet kitten, other than plausibly the Supreme Court?
The President may even become more mellow with a pet afoot and less likely to slap tariffs on our allies, or attempt to annex our neighbors, or bully our Congress. (Realizing, of course, a bully requires active participation from the bullied to maintain his status.)
Maybe we should do both: get the President a pet and devise a travel plan for him. (Do you think we could possibly convince him to leave his phone at home?)
Let’s go for it! After all:
Travel far enough, you meet yourself. (David Mitchell)
And for our President, that would likely be the most profound discovery of all.
Amy Lockard is an Iowa resident who regularly contributes to regional newspapers and periodicals. She is working on the second of a four-book fictional series based on Jane Austen’s “Pride and Prejudice."