The interview with Ajmera is interesting and inspiring, but I don't think you did a very good job of tying it back to the affirmative action ruling.

Indeed, language like "so that future POC generations going into college have the opportunity for their merit to be recognized" is a stronger argument in favor of the Supreme Court ruling than against it, unless you redefine merit.

Italicizing key words isn't enough. You can italicize fair in fair society for all, but at the core of the Supreme Court decision is their expressed desire for fairness, as the text of the decision and the assenting opinions make clear. The question at hand is what constitutes fairness.

The Supreme Court decision is thus: at this point in history, and with the information available to us at this point in history, it is more fair to treat people as individuals and judge merit on the basis of their particular circumstances, than it is to estimate unfairness or desirability for categories of people and use the category-score to stand in for individual condition.

(Note: the ruling explicitly allows universities to take into account how race has individually impacted applicants; it just can't use race as a bulk factor by which to pick some people over others, which is what both Harvard and UNC were doing.)

You might actually agree with the majority logic, given your (apparent) defense of merit; or you might agree with thelogic in principle but disagree that in practice the ruling will actually yield that outcome; or you might disagree in principle either because you define merit differently or because you have additional factors beyond merit that you think are relevant to fairness. (If you're not sure, try reading the dissenting opinions. Sotomayor's is particularly comprehensive.) But one can't tell from reading this article.