WHY THE SUPREME COURT’S DECISION TO OUTLAW AFFIRMATIVE ACTION WAS A WASTE OF THE COURT’S TIME

On June 29, 2023 in a majority vote of six to three, The Supreme Court ruled that Affirmative Action or “race-conscious admissions” should be prohibited in the admissions process of both the nation’s public and private colleges and universities. Although this is a complex issue and worthy of much discussion, consider the following points which remain in question, and lead me to strongly believe that the Supreme Court’s Decision was a monumental waste of the Court’s time!

College admissions has never been and will never be “fair.” Colleges and universities have their own institutional needs unbeknown to the public at large. What if a university wants to boost a major or program whose numbers are declining? What if a college needs an oboe player or harpist? What if the institution wants to keep a gender balance which may include nonbinary students? How often, in stating university student demographics, does it become known that there are students from all fifty states and geographies and fifty plus countries? Imagine a university that receives thirty or fifty thousand applicants having to meet college/university needs by accepting a class of only one-thousand five- hundred or two- thousand five- hundred. And not unsurprisingly, these needs include students who will not only contribute to the culture and mission of the college, but students who have exhibited unique potential as well.

The term Affirmative Action has always had a negative connotation as many in the public sphere adhere to the notion that minority students, namely Black and Brown students, are being admitted to colleges with sub-par qualifications; thereby taking the spots of White or Asian students with superior qualifications. By qualifications, reference is always made to standardized tests such as the SAT or ACT. And, are Asians a monolithic group? I think not! Do all Asian students have high ACT or SAT scores? I think not!

Although it is faulty thinking that any one student “owns” a spot in a college’s first-year class, consider the mission of at least three programs whose goal is to ensure that Black, Brown, and historically underrepresented students do have “qualifications” to enter Ivy League or otherwise elite colleges and universities. A Better Chance, Prep for Prep and QuestBridge are three such programs that identify and recruit bright and academically superior students of color who may be described as first generation or underserved minorities from mostly lower socio-economic communities. The goal is to develop students with promise and academic strength by placing them into the best and most elite Independent Day Schools, Boarding Schools or Specialized High Schools which are often “feeder schools” to top-tier colleges and universities. To assume that these students, when seen on campuses, are not qualified because of the color of their skin is based on misinformation, ignorance, or just plain racism.

Keeping with the theme of who is qualified and who is not, far too many college applicants refer to their superior SAT/ACT scores not realizing that studies have shown that these standardized tests have yet to determine a student’s future success in college. As a result, an organization called Fair Test-The National Center for Fair & Open Testing has up-to-date data on college and universities that are either Test Optional or Test Free, which means applicants have the option of whether to submit test scores. Furthermore, some colleges do not consider these scores even if submitted. It is true, however, that some applicants such as valedictorians or salutatorians are exempt from submitting scores even if a college or university requires them.

There are two other programs that have taken an interest in supporting and raising the academic and economic status of the historically underrepresented student; most of whom lack the privilege of visiting college and university campuses or lack of knowledge that these colleges even exist. There are approximately thirty Coalition Member Schools that provide overnight, all expenses paid visits to colleges which include meals and introduction to a plethora of college majors and programs. Over-lapping with Coalition Schools are Fly-In & Diversity Programs. Top-tier colleges and universities on these lists include Amherst College, Barnard College, College of the Holy Cross, Lehigh University, Tufts University, Johns Hopkins University, Bucknell University, Northeastern University and the University of Pennsylvania to name just a few.

As a result of the Affirmative Action ruling, the on-going practice of “legacy admissions” is looming large in college and university admissions offices along with the practice of donor related admissions. In July, 2023, a Boston based organization, Lawyers for Civil Rights, filed a federal complaint on behalf of three Black and Latin American groups which alleges that if preferences cannot be given to minorities, how can colleges justify giving preference to children of alumni known as legacies. The practice of giving preference to applicants whose parents donate huge sums of money, parents who may or may not be alumni parents, is also being questioned. These groups of applicants just happen to be largely white and/or wealthy. The Lawyers for Civil Rights claim that these preferences violate Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which prohibits any institution that receives federal monies from discriminating based on race. Furthermore, according to The Harvard Crimson, a Harvard newsletter, recently reported that more than sixty percent of Harvard’s freshmen do not support legacy admissions. The November 14, 2023 issue stated, “The Court’s decision also drew greater scrutiny over one of Harvard’s long-standing admissions policies----legacy preferences.” And yet, thus far, the act of giving preference to legacies and donor-related university applicants remains.

An additional cohort of applicants given preference are recruited athletes some of whom represent wealthy and/or white students who may participate in fencing, golf, water polo or squash all of which are expensive sports in which to engage. Consider researching the Varsity Blues Scandal.  Those sports that do not necessarily represent the wealthy such as football or basketball may still be given preference if the university or college is historically or presently a powerhouse for its sports reputation.

Did the Supreme Court in its ruling to outlaw race take into consideration Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs), particularly public institutions, that recruit from high schools that are predominantly White and Latino? According to a 2013 article in the Washington Post, “on public campuses, scholarships are being offered to increase minority attendance, and many non- black students, including Latinos and Asian are choosing these institutions as the best education for their dollar”. Does the Court’s ruling also strike down the use of race in the recruitment of White and other non-Black students on Historically Black Colleges and Universities? Was this an issue that the Supreme Court failed to consider in its ruling?

The most interesting outcome of the Supreme Court’s ruling comes from Chief Justice John Roberts who is quoted as saying, “Nothing in the opinion should be construed as prohibiting universities from considering an applicant’s discussion of how race affected his or her life be it through discrimination, inspiration or otherwise” Does that mean race may be considered, just hidden in an applicant’s essay?

As the high school senior class of 2024 continues the journey of applying to college, the process is still fraught with anxiety, the unknown, and confusion of who will “get in” and who will not. The Supreme Court did not solve many of the problems with college admissions that continue to exist, and it could be argued that the Court unearthed additional problems. The problem is complex and perfection seems out of the question. The complexity of the process calls for a deeper examination of nuanced data on several levels too numerous to cite. The lingering question is will the Supreme Court be saddled with additional law suits due to a lack of knowledge and heightened emotions on the part of the public and the many groups of students and parents who fail to see college admissions from the lens of the college and university gatekeepers? Will these projected future cases also be a waste of the Supreme Court’s time?