Across the world, if you are or have a child around the age of 17, you may have experienced the phenomenon of increasingly competitive American college admissions. This isn’t just a myth. It’s in the numbers. In 1988 the Harvard Crimson published an article about the Class of 1992, noting its low acceptance rate: 14.6%. In comparison, for the College’s Class of 2026, only 34 years later, the acceptance rate was 3.2%.
With increasingly competitive schools considering race in their admissions process, many have wondered to what extent race is a factor in admittance between similar candidates. Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA), a non-profit advocating for a race-blind policy, took this issue to the courts in 2014, arguing that Harvard College unlawfully discriminated against Asian Americans in its admissions process. SFFA’s case was recently heard by the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) on October 31st, 2022, a culmination of a near decade of legal battles, giving the court a chance to overturn half a century of legal precedent.
The Past of Affirmative Action in College Admissions
Affirmative action can be defined as “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.” First introduced in the early 1960s to combat racial discrimination, affirmative action policies in college admissions soon led to legal battles over its constitutionality. One of the first of these cases was Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978). At the time, the University of California’s Medical School had a quota system in which they left 16 of the 100 seats for members of minority groups. SCOTUS found this practice of racial quota systems to be unconstitutional, a violation under the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.
The next two cases both involved the University of Michigan and, funnily enough, were argued in the same year: 2013. However, their decisions couldn’t have been more different. Gratz v. Bollinger focused on the undergraduate admissions process while Grutter v. Bollinger looked at the law school’s admissions practices. At the undergraduate level, admission was based on a point system, with racial minorities given a point boost (comprising nearly ⅕ of the points needed to be admitted) for the sake of campus diversity. However, the law school didn’t adhere certain numeric values to different races in its admissions process, being an ethnic minority was simply a “plus factor.” In summary, SCOTUS ruled that while the undergraduate admissions process was unconstitutional, the law school’s practices were valid.
These landmark cases and those following their precedent have now altered how college admissions can operate today. Race, according to the legal precedent, can be used in admissions for the purposes of increased diversity, setting the stage for current legal battles.
The Present Case
The case between SFFA and Harvard and UNC resurfaced in the mainstream media towards the end of October 2022, as arguments between both parties were made in front of the SCOTUS. However, this legal battle has been trudging on for nearly a decade, beginning back in 2014 when SFFA filed two separate lawsuits against the schools.
Their arguments against Harvard and UNC are similar, but not identical. SFFA argues that Harvard College has broken Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, which bars discrimination based on race; the group focuses on the discrimination Asian Americans face at Harvard, making it more difficult for them to gain admission in comparison to similarly qualified applicants of other races. This discrimination, they argue, can even be seen in Harvard’s “rank system,” with Asian Americans receiving lower scores than non-Asian applicants for similar profiles. On the other hand, the group has sued UNC, a public institution, for violating the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause.
While both of the institution’s admissions practices have already been upheld in federal courts, with the current 6-3 conservative “stronghold” on SCOTUS, proponents of color-blind admissions policies believe this is the moment to overturn the precedent of key cases such as Grutter v. Bollinger. As a part of the majority opinion in Bollinger, retired justice O’Connor wrote that perhaps in 25 years “the use of racial preferences will no longer be necessary to further the interest approved today.” However, only 20 years later, these policies could be determined unconstitutional come the decision’s release in the summer, altering the way college admissions function today.
What Changes May Occur in the Future?
If the court does decide in favor of a “color-blind” admissions policy in the coming months, how will the admissions landscape change? The answer to this question is ambiguous, but the obvious answer would be at least a short-term fall in racial diversity on college campuses. Many point to the states which have already banned race-conscience admissions at their state schools, namely California and its UC system. When race-based affirmative action was banned in 1996 with Proposition 209, UC Berkeley experienced an initial large decrease in Latinx and African American students in their admitted classes. While the school attempted to implement “race-neutral” alternatives such as outreach to majority Black and Latinx schools and going test-blind, the new policies were not as effective or as impactful as race-based affirmative action.
To what extent could this ruling impact admissions practices? Beyond looking at an applicant’s file for admission, colleges take race into consideration in many parts of their admissions process. This often starts with “fly-in programs” and purchased recruitment lists targeting racial and ethnic minority groups whom colleges hope will be moved to apply to their upcoming class. There are also numerous race-conscious scholarships from the institutions themselves which help offset the ever-rising costs of a college education for minority students. These programs and scholarships, which have been found to crucially benefit low-income and racial minorities in admissions, may have to be greatly altered to fit with the new admissions landscape come June.
Colleges are already, slowly, working on improving diversity on their campus through other metrics. Amherst, MIT, and Johns Hopkins have already banned legacy admissions, and many other highly-selective universities are considering removing or reducing these preferences, which advantage predominantly whiter, wealthier families. Many colleges have also adopted test-optional policies, often following the COVID-19 pandemic, which in effect reduce the saliency of the SAT and ACT, having been criticized for benefitting high-income families.
Diversity—in thought, nationality, ethnicity, and gender identity—is a crucial part of any college campus, both in and out of the classroom. It’s no question that SCOTUS’s decision this summer will be incredibly influential, forcing colleges to double down on developing alternatives to increase diversity on their campuses without the consideration of race. A new precedent in college admissions may very well be set, sending us a major step backward in time.
0
0
Average Rating