Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Unraveling progress: The Supreme Court's ruling and its detrimental effect on mental health

Unraveling progress: The Supreme Court's ruling and its detrimental effect on mental health
Getty Images

Hilda H. McClure is the Chief Operating Officer at the Cannenta Center for Healing and Empowerment and a Public Voices Fellow of the OpEd Project. She brings extensive expertise in trauma counseling adults. With a passion for empowering individuals, she also serves as a college counselor, leading Latinx Student Initiatives, a college professor and provides training to professionals in effectively serving the Hispanic community.



The Supreme Court recently ended affirmative action for institutions of higher education. As we continue to deal with the mental health crisis, a little known consequence of the Supreme Court’s decision is the impact this decision will have on our nation’s mental health process, particularly the potential for creating more problems for our youth.

College students struggling with mental health concerns are at an all-time high, with 15 percent of students stating that they are contemplating suicide. As these campuses' demographics and diversity change, BIPOC students will be at greater risk for bias, prejudice and racism. Research shows that those who have been regularly treated unfairly can be more susceptible to mental health conditions such as low self-esteem and at higher risk for anxiety and depression.

Affirmative action opened doors for brilliant, deserving students of color to get into college and was designed to level the playing field for students. This Supreme Court ruling is taking us back many years

The APA CEO stated, “Scientific research has also found that exposure to diversity enhances critical thinking and promotes deeper information processing and problem-solving skills, among other benefits. Without purposeful attention to achieving diverse student bodies, our institutions of higher learning are likely to grow even more racially and ethnically polarized.”

One likely outcome of the Supreme Court ruling relates to the continued shortage of BIPOC therapists in the U.S. as most programs are out of reach due to high cost, lack of diversity in programming, and unpaid rigorous internships. This ruling is likely to further reduce the number of POC students getting into these needed programs, potentially creating the perfect storm of furthering the mental health crisis for generations to come.

All these factors will continue to erode the younger generation's mental health, while also inhibiting those therapists, programs, and resources from being available. Today’s choices will impact tomorrow’s workforce, economy and overall country’s well-being.

Affirmative action does not grant minority students unwarranted advantages or diminish students’ accomplishments in lieu of their race or ethnicity. Instead, it rectifies the historical discrimination faced by marginalized communities by offering them the same opportunities as their peers.

Though we may not be able to change the Supreme Court ruling, we can champion and advocate for colleges the value in diversity and inclusion efforts and to invest accordingly. In order to build a brighter future in the U.S., we must create and provide equitable opportunities for all students by addressing unequal funding, inadequate resources in underprivileged communities and the lack of culturally sensitive mental health resources.


Read More

Fueling the Future: The Debate Over California’s Gas Tax and Transportation Funding
person in red shirt wearing silver bracelet holding red and black metal tool
Photo by Wassim Chouak on Unsplash

Fueling the Future: The Debate Over California’s Gas Tax and Transportation Funding

This nonpartisan policy brief, written by an ACE fellow, is republished by The Fulcrum as part of our partnership with the Alliance for Civic Engagement and our NextGen initiative — elevating student voices, strengthening civic education, and helping readers better understand democracy and public policy.

Key Takeaways

Keep ReadingShow less
A person looking at social media app icons on a phone

Gen Z is quietly leaving social media as algorithmic feeds, infinite scroll, and addictive platform design fuel anxiety, isolation, and mental health struggles.

Matt Cardy/Getty Images

Gen Z Begs Legislators: Make Social Media Social Again

Lately, it seems like each time I reach out to an old acquaintance through social media, I’m met with a page that reads, “This account doesn’t exist anymore.”

Many Gen-Z’ers are quietly quitting the platforms we grew up on.

Keep ReadingShow less
Open Letter to Justice Roberts: Partisan Gerrymandering Is Unconstitutional
beige concrete building under blue sky during daytime

Open Letter to Justice Roberts: Partisan Gerrymandering Is Unconstitutional

The Supreme Court, in holding that partisan gerrymandering is permissible—unless it "goes too far"—stated that the argument made against this practice based on the Court's "one person, one vote" doctrine didn't work because the cases that developed that doctrine were about ensuring that each vote had an equal weight. The Court reasoned that after redistricting, each vote still has equal weight.

I would respectfully disagree. After admittedly partisan redistricting, each vote does not have an equal weight. The purpose of partisan gerrymandering is typically to create a "safe" seat—to group citizens so that the dominant political party has a clear majority of the voters. It's the transformation of a contested seat or even a seat safe for the other party into a safe seat for the party doing the redistricting.

Keep ReadingShow less