With the Supreme Court set to release a potentially monumental decision as early as this week ending racial preferences in college admissions, professors at the Harvard Graduate School of Education organized an alumni event on “Anticipating a Post-Affirmative Action World: Insights and Strategies for the Future.”

Interestingly, but perhaps not surprisingly, only two minutes of the hourlong panel discussion on April 4 was allotted to discussing the cases before the Supreme Court.

The balance of the time was spent discussing racism, white privilege, and blaming white men — in other words, elite-level thinking at Harvard. That the plaintiffs in the case (and in a companion case arising from the University of North Carolina) before the Supreme Court are Asian is entirely irrelevant to Harvard’s freethinkers.

One of the panelists, Tony Jack, an assistant professor at the Harvard Graduate School of Education who as a student majored in women’s and gender studies and the author of the book “The Privileged Poor,” had a lot to say about the “regime of colonialism and racism in this country.”

Jack is fearful that, as a result of the Supreme Court’s decision, colleges and universities will start using “place as a proxy for race.” Although he deserves points for his clever use of alliteration and rhyme, his concern makes clear that academic achievement is irrelevant to how he would propose the admissions office make its decisions.

Jack is rattled by the prospect of race-blind admissions. He says we have to stop and ask ourselves: “Are we setting ourselves up for even more heartache?” Four minutes into the session, it was clear that the promised discussion of Students for Fair Admissions v. President & Fellows of Harvard College and Students for Fair Admissions v. the University of North Carolina was instead a one-sided political rant.

That was further clarified when another panelist, Angel Perez, CEO of the National Association for College Admission Counseling, said it was time to “get our fight on.” He hopes to see more “activism on campuses” and finds it “inspiring to see students protest.”

He also warns about “dangerous” legislation against diversity, equity and inclusion at the state level. On that note, Jack chimed in, leading with “I don’t like to say I’m from Florida” and claiming the Supreme Court’s “divine nine” (another trademark rhyme) are corrupted in ways comparable to that of Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis.

Jack also asserted that “education isn’t a resource for the individual, but for the group” and that “it’s not about ‘I,’ but about ‘we.’” After all, it wouldn’t be a Harvard panel discussion without a nod to Marxism.

Reorienting the conversation back to racial preferences, Harvard professor Susan Dynarski lamented that it’s unfortunate that “we can’t admit students unless they apply.” Indeed, why bother with the hassle of applying if the odds disproportionately favor your admission? Dynarski stands solidly in the camp that thinks ending racial preferences would spell doom for higher education.

One major concern of the panelists was that disposing of racial preferences would negatively affect woke DEI offices. Students aside, there were grave concerns over the job security of DEI officers. (The Left has never found a jobs program they couldn’t get behind.)

Complaints about how bloated administrative staff have limited financial resources is ironic to say the least, especially at a school sitting on a $50 billion endowment.

Many of the comments in the virtual chatroom included remarks like “It sounds like a repeal of affirmative action would lead to more black and brown students being excluded.” One student claimed that conservatives “want to keep schools white.”

Ironically, none of the white students or faculty in attendance were seen volunteering to leave their position so a black or brown person could have it. No, the problem is seemingly always some other white person, though not at Harvard, who is keeping minorities out.

This panel discussion on the future of racial preferences was full of the same Pavlovian drivel you would expect from Harvard. It’s the sort of real-life farce that the Babylon Bee can’t skewer, because the reality is a parody already.

It was politically charged, baseless, and racist in its own assumptions, masquerading as a balanced and objective discussion. 

But it was also incredibly revealing, because people signal their weaknesses. Poker players say that most everyone has a tell, and by hosting this event, the woke folks at Harvard just revealed their hand. They are absolutely terrified that the Supreme Court might end their ability to discriminate on the basis of race in college admissions and expose their grift. 

These “educators” sell snake oil, teaching that America is irredeemably racist, and as such, students need DEI, critical race theory, and affirmative action to succeed.

It’s a racist business racket, and they are afraid the Supreme Court might just upend their entire narrative with one simple ruling; namely, that people can succeed on merit. 

The Daily Signal publishes a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Heritage Foundation.

Have an opinion about this article? To sound off, please email letters@DailySignal.com and we’ll consider publishing your edited remarks in our regular “We Hear You” feature. Remember to include the url or headline of the article plus your name and town and/or state.

The post Harvard Melts Down Over Threat to Affirmative Action appeared first on The Daily Signal.