This past January, the Supreme Court said it would hear arguments on two cases involving affirmative action in admissions practices. The petitioner is Students for Fair Admissions, a conservative organization, that posits both Harvard and the University of North Carolina improperly considered race to the detriment of both white and Asian applicants. Harvard maintains it uses race as one factor among many in a holistic review of hopeful students, while UNC argues it examines race in an effort to promote a diverse educational landscape.
Given the recent news that SCOTUS is expected to overturn what many of us took for granted as settled law, I find it timely to examine the history of affirmative action and its place in American higher education over the past 43 years.
Let’s first spend a brief moment defining affirmative action and examining the Court’s history upholding the practice of race-conscious college admissions. Then, we will look at arguments for and against the policy. Lastly, we will assess existing mechanisms in college admissions that help safeguard diversity.
Definition ~ Defined legally, affirmative action is “a set of procedures designed to eliminate unlawful discrimination among applicants, remedy the results of such prior discrimination, and prevent such discrimination in the future.” Easy enough and sounds pretty ideal. How about an even simpler definition? Brittanica offers one: “an active effort to improve…educational opportunities for members of minority groups.”
History ~ Beyond rectifying wrongs of the past and increasing access, the Court upheld affirmative action in 1978 and 2003, reasoning that race-conscious admissions practices “further a compelling interest in obtaining the educational benefits that flow from a diverse student body.” In essence, the Court explains that considering race actually benefits every student at the school, regardless of their background. In 2013, SCOTUS placed limiting language on an institution’s use of affirmative action, stating that “race should play no greater role than is necessary” to achieve diversity. The Court most recently affirmed its stance in 2016, finding permissible the consideration of race as one factor in admissions decisions at the University of Texas.
The Opposition’s Argument ~ So why are affirmative action policies fraught with such discord? What basis for contention do opponents of the practice have? Those against implementing race-conscious practices in college admissions argue that affirmative action is actually racism in reverse, that any consideration of race—even when conferring a benefit—is wrong. Critics contend that applicants should be evaluated solely on their merits, that no consideration of race—white, black, Latinx, Asian—should be given to any applicant. They suggest that if institutions grant admission on anything other than meeting academic and extracurricular benchmarks, individuals will become less motivated to succeed. Currently nine states, including California, have passed legislation banning affirmative action in all forms.
The Proponent’s Argument ~ Beyond the Court’s reasons for upholding affirmative action that I mentioned above, I want to offer another argument. Schools weight students' grades earned in rigorous coursework so that their GPA reflects their academic efforts. A “B” in an AP class is worth more than a "B" in the regular section of that same class. Should we not view race-conscious admissions as affording a similar weight to a minority applicant’s achievements—academic, athletic, and beyond—that they earned in the face of adversity? This leverage allows an admissions officer to help a student overcome their station in life, to potentially end the perpetuation of being at a disadvantage—be it educationally, economically, or socially—because inherent in their consideration of race are the notions of lack of access to academic and extracurricular opportunities, a college-going culture, and strong educational guidance.
Whatever your stance is on the issue of race-conscious admissions, only 9 opinions ultimately matter. Therefore, it behooves us to look at how the nature of college applications and university policies already in practice can ameliorate the devastating blow a potential overturning of Supreme Court precedent might cause for marginalized applicants.
Test-Blind/Test Optional Policies ~ Many colleges and universities recognized years ago that a student’s standardized test scores may not accurately reflect their ability to be academically successful at a given school. Gaps in access to educational resources and test prep made schools increasingly wary of high scores from affluent applicants and lower scores from minority and first-generation students. While a school’s motivation in adopting test optional policies may not be entirely altruistic, applicants with high GPAs can confidently apply to institutions and get a fair examination of their high school career even when the test score doesn’t support their other efforts.
Personal Statements ~ Accompanying essays breathe life in to a student’s application. They give image to the actual person behind the grades and achievements. In just 650 words, students offer insight to their values, background, and lived experiences. If a minority student’s race has been integral in shaping their character and personality, they can address it in their essay. Admissions officers are regular people. They can’t divorce their humanity from the task of fashioning an incoming freshman class. Race-conscious admissions may become a thing of the past in terms of giving a “check-plus” on a student’s score sheet, but racial preference can still occur when a student’s essay impacts the reader enough to offer admission.
Letters of Recommendation ~ An educator’s confidential, reflective attestation about a student’s character, motivation, and achievements is a trustworthy component for admissions officers to use in their evaluation. If a student’s triumphs and setbacks within the school would be incomplete without mentioning their race, a teacher would include this information for an admissions officer to contemplate.
Banning Legacy Consideration ~ The practice of legacy admissions is rooted in exclusion, adopted to keep Jews and immigrants out of elite institutions in the 1920s. Few elite schools have abandoned the practice. But two Democratic Representatives introduced the Fair College Admissions for Students Act into Congress on February 2. If Congress passes the Act, it will prevent colleges and universities that participate in federal student aid programs (think Pell Grants, federal student loans and work study) from boosting an applicant’s chance for admission based on family legacy. The result? Admissions officers can fill more spots in the freshman class with qualified, dynamic applicants instead of reserving them for students who set themselves apart simply by having the right surname. Certain ultra-selective universities could see more than 15 percent of freshman class spots made available to their applicant pool. Colorado has already enacted a statewide ban on legacy admissions, while lawmakers in Connecticut and New York have proposed bills to end the practice.
Diversity on college campuses remains a compelling interest for the vast majority of colleges and universities. Whether the Court will abandon this hallmark of its prior holdings and conclude that race-conscious admissions is no longer necessary to achieve it remains to be seen. Administrators, educators, and policymakers must continue to institute practices that provide access to marginalized populations. Students become professionals. Minority representation in marketing firms, classrooms, hospitals, courthouses, and the like requires adherence to precedent. I'll be watching.
Comments