Column: Sorry, founders, we’ve never been created equal

The Fourth of July should never be celebrated without revisiting the hallowed words that crown the Declaration of Independence and symbolize the American Dream.

And right now, it’s fair to ask whether that majestic passage fits with the Supreme Court’s landmark decision banning race-conscious affirmative action in university admissions — or is it in conflict.

The sentence most of us studied in school:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”

The nation’s founders backed their revolutionary split from Great Britain with this solemn proclamation: “We mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.”

It was a noble declaration of principles that carried no legal weight and had little resemblance to real life — even for many of the signers. For the majority of them — including principal drafters Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin — their fortunes included slaves, who were treated the opposite of equals.

Slavery continued legally in America for 89 more years. It took the Civil War, the deaths of an estimated 620,000 soldiers and arguably America’s greatest president, Abraham Lincoln, to abolish slavery.

Although the Declaration of Independence proclaimed that all men are created equal, it was silent about women. They were not allowed to vote for 143 more years.

All men were created equal except slaves, Native Americans and other people of color. Native Americans were butchered in the name of progress and Manifest Destiny.

In California, Chinese immigration was prohibited by “exclusion” acts into the 20th century. The Alien Land Act of 1913 barred Japanese immigrants from owning property.

Housing discrimination based on race, ethnicity, religion — whatever — was legal and common in California until the mid-1960s. A heroic Gov. Pat Brown, a skittish Democratic-controlled Legislature and ultimately the California Supreme Court and U.S. Supreme Court outlawed discrimination in home selling and renting.

On July 4, 1776, all Americans definitely had not been created equal. And today they still haven’t been. But we’ve made good progress toward leveling life’s playing field, taking steps the founders never could have envisioned.

Back to the conservative court’s historic affirmative action ruling last week: On a 6-3 vote, it struck down university policies that use race as a factor in deciding which students get admitted.

Many universities have focused too much on race, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. asserted.

“They have concluded, wrongly, that the touchstone of an individual’s identity is not challenges bested, skills built or lessons learned but the color of their skin,” Roberts wrote for the majority. “Our constitutional history does not tolerate that choice.”

He also wrote that “an individual’s race may never be used against him in the admissions process.”

My layman’s interpretation of that: A white or Asian American applicant, for example, should not be denied admission solely for the purpose of making room for a Black or Latino student.

For the minority, Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote: “The majority’s vision of race neutrality will entrench racial segregation in higher education because racial inequality will persist so long as it is ignored.”

Supporters of affirmative action say that admission to a prestigious university provides an invaluable leg up in a graduate’s pursuit of a successful career and helps to mitigate generations of systemic racism.

For the record, I’ve always believed that we shouldn’t fight discrimination by discriminating.

It’s uncomfortable, however, to side with this far-right court that was shaped by Donald Trump, the most distasteful president in history.

Given our political polarization, I suspect that if affirmative action could be placed on the California ballot next year, it might well be approved. Voters likely would think: If Trump’s against affirmative action, it must be good policy.

It’s a paradox that this deep-blue state has twice voted against affirmative action in public education, contracting and employment based on race, ethnicity and gender.

The first time was in 1996. The campaign was especially nasty. Affirmative action supporters ran TV ads equating opponents with Ku Klux Klansmen in white robes and hoods. That backfired. Californians voted by a 9-percentage-point margin to ban affirmative action.

Inspired by the Black Lives Matter movement, the Legislature placed a measure on the 2020 ballot to reinstate affirmative action. It lost overwhelmingly by 14 percentage points.

So, when Gov. Gavin Newsom railed against the court’s ruling last week, it sounded awkward because, after all, the justices had voted basically the way Californians did just three years earlier.

“Right-wing activists — including those donning robes — are trying to take us back to the era of book bans and segregated campuses,” Newsom declared.

“While the path to equal opportunity has now been narrowed for millions of students…[California] campus doors remain open for all who want to work hard — and our commitment to diversity, equity and equal opportunity has never been stronger.”

But on affirmative action, California voters are with Florida — a state whose conservative policies Newsom obsessively denounces.

California has always prided itself on being a national leader on groundbreaking issues. And it clearly is on affirmative action, whether Newsom likes it or not.

In fact, other states could learn a lot from California about how to diversify their universities without race-based affirmative action.

As Times education writers Teresa Watanabe and Debbie Truong reported, University of California campuses have made notable strides. Black and Latino students represented 43% of the admitted first-year class of Californians for fall 2022, compared with only about 20% before affirmative action was banned a quarter century ago.

We’re still agonizing over to what extent one person in the pursuit of happiness is allowed to shove aside someone else. It’s a question guaranteed to generate political fireworks.