AUTHOR’S NOTE: The recent United States Supreme Court decision to scrap the affirmative-action provisions of federal law for institutions of higher learning inspired me to perform this reading on the future of all equal-opportunity measures for applicants to any kind of position. I decided to use a Lenormand 3×3 spread and the Old-Style Lenormand deck for this effort, with the Book (representing access to knowledge) as the pre-selected central “topic” card; this spread is comprehensive enough to capture insights from a number of different perspectives, and the cards pulled plainly show the legalistic infighting that is likely to ensue.

The question was “What will be the long-term effect of affirmative-action law changes on all types of equitable access?” The projected conclusion is that this may only be the tip of the iceberg as the court tries to “normalize” application of the laws.

BACKGROUND: Many years ago, when equal-opportunity and affirmative-action expectations first emerged as an employment directive, a friend held the position of implementing hiring protocols to place minority applicants in middle-management positions for an international insurance giant, with the objective of meeting a certain “diversity” percentage. Although the target population was ample in the medium-sized city where she worked, this turned out to be a thankless task, with the positions becoming a “revolving door” as one new employee after another failed to make the grade (this was a city where a composite “40 on a scale of 100” was a passing mark to graduate from high school). This is not a racist remark, just a statement of observable fact. Regarding public colleges and universities, this idea always struck me as a social-engineering exercise in forced diversity without regard for individual merit. The goal was noble (ensuring access to higher education for all) but the implementation became a “numbers game” that was anything but “color-blind.” Filling the ranks with the right ethnic distribution became more important to recruitment than SAT scores.

This smacks dangerously of “reverse racism” since otherwise qualified students of different ethnicity felt that they weren’t competing on a level playing field and suspected they were being unfairly excluded in deference to a perceived need for a specific type of heterogeneity. It’s interesting that the lawsuits that led to the verdict were filed on behalf of students of Asian descent, an ethnic group that was for a very long time assumed to be a disadvantaged population in this country. A visit to the Northeastern University/Harvard Medical School area of Boston – where the young Asian demographic is prominent – points out why this is such a sensitive issue for them; they want a shot at an American education and believe the chance for one is being unjustly denied them in what is supposed to be an equal-access selection process.

At least in the United States, an education beyond the secondary-school level is guaranteed to nobody, only the opportunity to pursue one if the demands can be met, and the assumption is that those stipulations are applied equally to all aspirants. In this light, it is easy to understand the reasoning behind the Supreme Court’s decision. I like the approach of some European nations, where a higher education is available to all but the graduate owes a couple of years of public service – military or government-sponsored – to offset the cost. This is probably too sensible an idea for the pressure-cooker that is American over-achievement culture. Anyway, on to the reading.

Right off the top, there are many hostile attitudes surrounding this issue (Mice, Coffin, Scythe, Snake). At first blush this decision looks like an attack on education-for-all by the Supreme Court, but the purpose of the ruling was anything but; it was in fact a smack-down of prejudicial favoritism that used racial profiling in recruitment logistics. (Prospective students were being asked to state their ethnicity in application documents so the administration could “adjust” incoming student-body demographics to meet affirmative-action goals.)

Letter + Mice + High Tower suggest that the “letter of the law” in its current form is unlikely to withstand the test of time and will be curbed in some way.

Coffin + Book + Scythe makes me think it is fore-doomed to revision, but it will take Congressional action to do so (not specifically implied by the cards unless we assume that all politicians are “snakes” [a not-unreasonable assumption], but a fact nonetheless).

In this regard, Scythe + Snake indicate the (possibly Machiavellian) machinations that are likely as the various stakeholders make their stab at it.

Snake + Stork + Sun give the impression that some kind of agreement will be reached with dissenters that allows the “belaying” action to move forward, with the court’s decision remaining largely intact for the moment.

The four corners could mean that the “old guys” (High Tower) delivered an “edict” (Letter) that seems legally above reproach in constitutional terms (Sun) but attempts to undermine it will begin immediately (Snake).

Regarding the columns, Letter + Coffin + Snake delivered a “death sentence” to what was viewed in the court’s eyes as an unfair (and perhaps devious) practice by institutions of higher learning. It looks like a “cease-and-desist” order to me, and it should have the same effect.

Mice + Book + Stork show that the court’s point-of-law affecting access to education might be “nibbled at” but that it will most likely move out of range of any serious challenge.

High Tower + Scythe + Sun suggest that it will take some doing for detractors to “cut the legs out from under” the Justice’s ruling, and that a major roll-back is unlikely.

The “internal cross” (Mice + Coffin + Book + Scythe + Stork) presages that, while the effort to stonewall the ruling outright (Coffin) will peter out (Mice affecting Coffin), incursions (Scythe-blade pointing toward Book) could be made into the effects of its access-to-education provisions (Book) that would be seen as fortunate changes by opponents (Stork), even if the Sun ultimately overrides some of those perceived gains.

The diagonal Letter + Book + Sun suggests that the ruling will stand largely as written, while the diagonal Snake + Book + High Tower describes the convoluted legal challenge to the high court’s supremacy. (Book in that sense could mean anything from the Constitution to case-law precedent.)