The end of the U.S. Supreme Court’s annual term typically comes at the beginning of summer and is always an active time. During the last week or two, decisions come down related to fundamental issues including our rights, economy, and government on a near-daily basis. Some cheer and some mourn as the nation’s legal framework shifts and sets up the next round of debates and decisions.

There used to be true suspense. Justices’ decisions were less tied to party affiliation and more tied to legal theories and precedents.

Now it seems the die is cast well before the case is ever heard, and the only suspense is in the timing or breadth of the inevitable decision.

Such is the case with one of the blockbuster decisions likely to arrive in the coming weeks. In cases involving Harvard University and the University of North Carolina, the writing is on the wall for the future of affirmative action. Colleges are likely to be told they can no longer consider race in student admissions decisions, which would be the end of a long string of cases on this subject dating back to 1978.

Some will celebrate the decision, pointing to the return of a true meritocracy in college decisions. Some will criticize it, pointing out college education’s important role as a great equalizer in society. But both will miss the wider point.

College admission processes have never been fair or equitable at our most prestigious schools, regardless of affirmative action practices. Many of the same institutions that have defended affirmative action have admission practices that are openly harmful to the American ideal that everyone deserves a chance.

For example, legacy admission has long been cited as a corrupting influence. When selective colleges give the children of alumni an advantage in the admissions process, they are practicing the exact reverse of affirmative action. They are giving those with the most advantages in life (the result of being born to someone who peviously attended an elite institution) yet more advantage. At Harvard, for example, 33% of legacy applicants are admitted, while only 6% of others who apply are so fortunate. And, not surprisingly, these legacy admissions are, given the historic enrollment at these selective institutions, much more likely to be white.

It is not just children of alumni who get an advantage in admissions. Elite institutions also give preferential treatment to recruited student-athletes, the children of faculty and staff, the children of major donors, and the children of powerful politicians and business leaders. In every situation, the beneficiaries are overwhelmingly white students. A recent study at Harvard found that 43% of the white students admitted fit into one of these privileged categories, while only 16% of applicants of color receive this leg up.

And the grand, charitable purpose for preferring these groups of students? Money. Institutional leaders have long been blunt about the fact that denying entry to children of alumni or other donors would cost them the good will and gifts of their parents.

Money is important to students too. Institutional financial aid is a significant tool for colleges in recruiting students. Colleges offer scholarships totaling $7.4 billion per year. Yet the dirty secret of American higher education is that most of this aid goes to students without financial need. In fact, students in the highest 25% of family incomes receive more aid on average ($11,300) than those from the lowest 25% of family incomes ($7,500). It pays to be rich — 50% more to be exact!

The cause is merit aid – financial aid linked to measures of selectivity like standardized test scores. Elite colleges want more students with higher test scores and GPAs. After all, that’s how you can claim to be “elite” – it is a measure of inputs (the students you attract), not the outputs you generate (what students actually learn). Those test scores, high school GPAs, and other input variables are highly correlated to family income. That is, wealthier kids who had advantages in school, at home, and in co-curricular experiences tend to score better on tests. Surprise, surprise.

Thus, the very same institutions that stand before the Supreme Court to argue for the importance of diversity are spending most of their financial aid budgets on students from wealthier families. That’s a reason why children of parents in the top one percent of earners are 77 times more likely to attend an Ivy League college than those from the bottom 20% of family incomes.

The arguments before the Court in this case are a smoke screen.

The reality is clear. If wealthy and elite institutions want diversity in their classrooms, there are many ways to achieve it without having to win a Supreme Court case. End legacy admissions. Shift aid to those who actually need it. Stop chasing prestige and magazine rankings. Provide fair access to your life-changing programs.

Talking about the importance of diversity while simultaneously giving huge advantages to the already privileged does real harm. Hopefully the Supreme Court sees these arguments for what they truly are — pure hypocrisy. Preserving higher education’s role as a way for all Americans to move up the socio-economic ladder means ensuring institutions make admissions decisions in line with their charitable missions and values. In Otterbein’s case, we will always be on the side of expanding knowledge–for all.

John Comerford is president of Otterbein University and a vocal advocate for access and affordability in higher education. He serves as a board member for the Council of Independent Colleges, Central Ohio Compact, Association of Independent Colleges and Universities of Ohio, and Ohio Foundation of Independent Colleges.