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.
image of U.S. President Donald Trump is displayed on a digital billboard in Times Square in New York on April 8, 2026.
Trump is stuck between two realities. Neither serves the American people
Normally, I worry that events may overtake a column. But not so with the Iran war.
I don’t worry about running afoul of a headline or Truth Social post from the president because what is said about the situation is no longer very relevant to the reality.
On April 8, Nick Catoggio, my Dispatch colleague, dubbed an earlier stoppage with Iran “Schrödinger’s ceasefire.” This was a reference to the famous thought experiment by the physicist Erwin Schrödinger, who was trying to explain the weirdness of “superpositionality” in quantum physics. A cat in a box is both dead and alive at the same time until you open the box. Schrödinger meant to illustrate the absurdity of the idea that particles aren’t any one thing, but a “cloud of probabilities.”
The Trump administration is stuck in a word cloud of probabilities of his own making. The war is over. The war is on. The war isn’t a war. We have a deal, but we don’t have a deal, but we’re about to have a deal. We destroyed Iran’s military. No, we left it intact. We want regime change. No we don’t. We already accomplished it. We “obliterated” Iran’s nuclear program a year ago. We had to go to war in February to prevent nuclear war. The Strait of Hormuz is open, closed, or something in-between. No deal without “unconditional surrender.” Let’s make a deal!
This everything-all-at-once vibe can be disorienting, particularly since most Americans didn’t have a war with Iran on their bingo cards until the shooting had already started. President Trump didn’t prepare the country or consult with Congress beforehand because he thought it would all be a smashing success in a matter of weeks.
The miscalculation that started it all: killing Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and much of Iran’s senior leadership, on the first day of the war. To “the great proud people of Iran, I say tonight that the hour of your freedom is at hand,” Trump announced on Feb. 28. “When we are finished, take over your government. It will be yours to take. This will be probably your only chance for generations.”
I support regime change in Iran and shed no tears for Khamenei or his goons. But when you start a war by killing the regime’s top leaders, it’s not unreasonable for the remaining ones to conclude that you really intend regime change.
Khamenei was a murderous fanatic, but he was a fairly cautious one. He liked to threaten closing the Strait of Hormuz or attacking our regional allies, but he was reluctant to actually do it, fearing it would invite a regime change war. The mullahs and IRGC goons believed, not unreasonably, that if they lost their grip on power, they’d be lynched by the Iranian people they’ve brutalized for decades.
By starting with a regime change war, Trump removed any reason for the regime not to go for broke. When you have nothing to lose — particularly when you are a millenarian religious fanatic — a Persian Alamo strategy makes a lot of sense.
So Iran closed the Strait of Hormuz and attacked its neighbors.
But it turns out this wasn’t the Alamo. In the contest of wills, Trump blinked. The Iranian regime’s tolerance for punishment proved — so far — to be greater than Trump’s and that of our gulf allies. Militarily we could finish the job, but that would require ground troops and much greater economic turmoil. In a conflict Trump launched unilaterally without the prior support of Congress, NATO or the American people, Trump doesn’t have the political capital for that.
But that’s only half the problem. Trump wants the war over, but he doesn’t want to pay — militarily, economically, politically — what that would cost. So he wants to make a deal that ends it. But there is no deal available that wouldn’t come at an equally undesirable cost. Any deal that looks like what President Obama struck with the Iranians would be too embarrassing to bear. But the Iranians are convinced that they can get just such a deal, and they’re willing to drag things out as long as it takes.
The result: Trump’s in a box of his own making. He thinks he can talk his way out by simply asserting a reality that doesn’t exist. When the financial markets get nervous, he announces a breakthrough that is, at best, a possibility. When the Iranians agree to a deal that looks similar to one Obama might negotiate, Trump goes back to his threats.
It can’t go on forever. But I’m sure it’ll last until long after this column is forgotten.
Jonah Goldberg is editor-in-chief of The Dispatch and the host of The Remnant podcast. His Twitter handle is @JonahDispatch.