The Future of Race-Conscious Admissions

Higher education's ability to ensure a diverse student population on campus is at risk.  On January 24, 2022, the Supreme Court decided to hear the case Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President & Fellows of Harvard College, which has been consolidated for consideration of the Court with the case of Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. University of North Carolina.  One of the questions presented in the case against Harvard is, should the Court overrule Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306 (2003), and stop colleges and universities from using race as a factor in admissions?  The other question is, is Harvard violating Title VI by penalizing Asian American applicants, overemphasizing race, and rejecting workable race-neutral alternatives?  The decision made by the Supreme Court could have wide-ranging impacts on institutions across the country regarding race-conscious admissions practices.  Race-conscious admissions practices consist of admissions offices at universities taking race into consideration when admitting students into their colleges.  Admitting students using race as a factor in admissions helps to create more diverse campuses and helps to ensure that people from racially minoritized backgrounds are admitted at rates to help provide equity.  As noted in the article linked above from Bloomberg Law, author Deborah Archer does a wonderful job explaining the issues with “race-neutral” admissions practices and the problems associated with legacy and donor admissions.     

In Grutter v. Bollinger, the Court determined that the Equal Protection Clause under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution did not prohibit schools from using race in admissions decisions in the interest of creating a diverse student body and the benefits that come from such.  Having students from diverse backgrounds has been proven time and again to challenge student worldviews and to create a more vibrant campus community.  In my experience as a student, and now as a student affairs professional I have experienced so many benefits of having peers from diverse backgrounds.  I have grown so much as a person from being exposed to ideas and traditions that I would have never experienced in my rural, white, hometown.  The Petitioner, in Grutter v. Bollinger, sued the law school at the University of Michigan based on racial discrimination, alleging that race is used as a “predominant” factor in admissions.  The Petitioner further asserted that certain racial groups were disfavored in the admissions process.  The Court determined that due to the holistic review of each applicant and how their identities contributed to the diversity of the student body, the admissions process ensured all factors that could contribute to diversity were taken into account including race.  Therefore race-conscious admissions practices could continue to persist at the University of Michigan and other colleges across the country.   

During the recent confirmation hearing for the Honorable Ketanji Brown Jackson, she said that she would recuse herself from the case involving Students for Fair Admissions if appointed to the Supreme Court.  Judge Jackson is a graduate of Harvard and her serving on the University’s Board of Overseers is seen by many as a conflict of interest.  During the confirmation hearing, this question about whether or not she would recuse herself or not was posed by Senator Ted Cruz of Texas.  I can only assume that if Judge Jackson could preside over this case that she would promote the continuation of race-conscious admissions and that not being able to do so is painful for her.  This potential recusal by Judge Jackson will set the stage for the already conservative majority Supreme Court to likely end race-conscious admissions practices in higher education.  If this does occur, I believe this is not, and should not, be looked at as a shortcoming of Judge Jackson. Judge Jackson is highly credentialed and morally steadfast. This is apparent in the fact that she would recuse herself from such a monumental case.  With the retirement of Justice Stephen Breyer, whom Judge Jackson apprenticed under, and Judge Jackson’s recusal, the Court would have just two Justices who tend to hold liberal ideologies on the bench.  In Grutter v. Bollinger, Judge Thomas was the only current member of the Supreme Court to preside over the case.  He held a dissenting opinion on the matter in accordance with the other conservative Justices on the Court at that time.  

 If in the case Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President & Fellows of Harvard College  the Court determines that colleges and universities cannot consider race as a factor in admissions this would effectively end race-conscious admissions in the college admission process in the United States.  The state of California has had a state ban on the consideration of race, ethnicity, and gender in public higher education for decades now since the passage of proposition 209 in 1996.  This, some argue, has created an “opportunity gap” for Black, Latinx, and Native American students.  In 2020 the state of California voted down Proposition 16 which would have enabled universities to use race and gender in determining college admissions.  This lack of consideration of race in admissions has been met with criticism over the decades, notably by Black male students at UCLA with the release of the video “The Black Bruin”.  The video has over 2.4 million views on YouTube. The statistics shared in the video and the artful production of the video sparked my interest in race-conscious admissions and affirmative action during college. 

Opponents of affirmative action in California argue that it should not be up to decision-makers and politicians in the state to make these decisions on college admissions or jobs.  A popular narrative surrounding the opposition is that government and college officials cannot be trusted to factor race into decisions without their own biases and stereotypes clouding their judgment.  There are other arguments that race-conscious admissions negatively impact the ability of other systematically marginalized groups to gain acceptance into college when having the same credentials as other applicants.  In Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President & Fellows of Harvard College those with Asian American identities are specifically mentioned.     

In my opinion, it would be a travesty to note have race considered as a factor in the college admissions process. Systemic racism in America and the academy has led to a variety of inequities in our society.  Although it is not in the purview of college administrators or student affairs professionals to be able to enact policies that will fix all the issues in this country related to race, the least we can do is continue to advocate for the ability to create diverse and equitable campuses.  The links between colleges and racism can be found throughout the existence of higher education in America from the founding of Harvard in 1636 to the present day.  Several publications,The State Must Provide: Why America’s Colleges Have Always Been Unequal – And How to Set Them Right,Blackballed The Black + White Politics of Race on America’s Campuses, andEbony & Ivy: Race, Slavery, and the Troubled History of America’s Universities, just to name a few, highlight the undeniable link between our systems of higher education and systemic/overt racism.  If it is found that there are faults within Harvard or UNC’s admissions process that continue to perpetuate the oppression of BIPOC (Black, Indigenous, people of color) students, faculty, and staff, then those systems should be changed.  To get rid of race entirely from the admissions process though would likely lead to continued underrepresentation of BIPOC students, faculty, and staff at our colleges and universities.  Thebenefits of having diverse student bodies are evident and not allowing for race-conscious admissions in my opinion would lead to a drastic change in the landscape of higher education in America for the worse.  In light of the scandal of Varsity Blues that showed the corruption of some college admissions processes, higher education critics are on the rise; however, to get rid of race-conscious admissions entirely would be, in my opinion, like throwing the baby out with the bathwater. 

It is impossible to tell what exactly will happen in the Supreme Court either in the Fall of this year or early next year when it comes to the fate of race-conscious admissions, but there is still time to better inform yourself on this issue.  Please engage in discourse with others inside and outside of the field on this topic and others that impact the lives of our students and loved ones.  To follow more on this topic The Chronicle of Higher Education has been following the development of this case for years and those articles can be found here.