蜜桃影视

Get stories like this delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for 蜜桃影视 Newsletter

The conservative-dominated U.S. Supreme Court seemed skeptical of whether universities should be able to continue the practice of considering race in admissions, and in arguments Monday, several justices openly questioned whether racial diversity offered any educational benefit.

If the tenor of the sometimes pointed exchanges are any indication, the outcome may hinge on how long universities expect to employ race-conscious admissions before such practices are no longer needed.

In arguments that lasted close to five hours, the court heard a pair of high-profile cases brought by a pro-Asian organization against Harvard and the University of North Carolina.

During the UNC case, which was heard first, attorneys representing the university argued that students are not admitted based on checking a racial box; rather, they look 鈥渉olistically鈥� at multiple factors, said Ryan Park, solicitor general of North Carolina, who insisted that race plays a 鈥渕inimal鈥� role in UNC鈥檚 decisions. 

鈥淚f it’s irrelevant, then you shouldn’t care whether it’s ruled out,鈥� Justice Samuel Alito said.

But Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, who was only on the bench for the UNC arguments, repeatedly homed in on the notion that the universities only employed race as one criteria among many. 

鈥淭he university is not requiring anybody to give their race. When you give your race, you’re not getting any special points. It’s being treated just on par with other factors in the system,鈥� Jackson said. 鈥淣o one’s automatically getting in.鈥�

At a time when racial issues are at the forefront of educational debates and school politics, the historic cases reflect how polarizing attempts to address past discrimination have become. The court鈥檚 lengthy gauntlet Monday is also an indication of the far-reaching implications of its decisions in the two cases, which are expected in June.

Advocates for affirmative action argue it鈥檚 important for colleges and universities to consider race as one factor in their efforts to create a diverse student body, especially since K-12 schools for Black and Hispanic students. But the plaintiffs, Students for Fair Admissions 鈥� with strong backing from Republicans and conservative organizations 鈥� say such policies are a form of illegal racial discrimination that put Asian students at a disadvantage. 

The student group wants the court to overturn Grutter v. Bollinger, a 2003 ruling that upheld race-based admissions at the University of Michigan Law School. They argue that allowing such policies to continue violates Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, which applies to any institution receiving federal funds, and the Constitution鈥檚 14th Amendment, which applies to UNC as a public university. 

鈥�Grutter assumed that race would only be a plus. But race is a minus for Asians, a group that continues to face immense racial discrimination in this country,鈥� said Cam Norris, representing the group in its lawsuit against Harvard. Asian students, he said, 鈥渟hould be getting into Harvard more than whites, but they don’t because Harvard gives them significantly lower personal ratings.鈥�

He said that Harvard is not socioeconomically diverse and that removing race-conscious admissions would actually increase opportunities for Black students. But Seth Waxman, representing Harvard, disagreed with Norris鈥檚 statement that 80% of students at the university come from wealthier families. The university, he said, has increased financial aid as a way to reduce its reliance on racial preferences. 

In the Harvard arguments, the conservative justices focused on a preliminary 鈥減ersonal rating鈥� the university鈥檚 40 admissions counselors apply to applicants as a form of 鈥渢riage鈥� to help sift through over 60,000 applications for just 1,600 spots at the elite university. Waxman showed the justices a chart that he said proves the role of race was so small, it was almost zero.

鈥淪o there is only a little racial discrimination,鈥� Chief Justice John Roberts quipped.

In the Grutter decision, former Justice Sandra Day O鈥機onnor suggested that 25 years in the future 鈥� 2028 鈥� the use of racial preferences would no longer be necessary. The conservative justices repeatedly pressed the Harvard and UNC attorneys to give an 鈥渆ndpoint.鈥� 

Representing the Biden administration, Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar said the 鈥渁rc of progress鈥� has been slower than O鈥機onnor envisioned and that universities should be diligent in using alternatives to race in their admission decisions.

Reacting to Monday鈥檚 arguments, Joshua Dunn, a political science professor at the University of Colorado, Colorado Springs, called the responses to the justices鈥� questions on this issue disappointing.

The lack of an endpoint 鈥渨ill allow the conservatives to say that schools have no intention of ever ending it, in violation of Grutter,鈥� he said.

Both Waxman for Harvard and Park for UNC said that race-neutral alternatives have been insufficient in creating a diverse student body. Removing the option to consider race would reduce the percentage of Black students admitted to Harvard from 14% to 10%, Waxman said.

The justices 鈥� even conservatives Clarence Thomas and Amy Coney Barrett 鈥� raised the possibility of using race only in the context of a student鈥檚 life experiences.

鈥淲hat if an applicant wrote an essay about how integral their racial identity was to them as a source of pride and the cultural attributes of their racial heritage were very important?鈥� Barrett asked. 鈥淲ould that be OK?鈥�

But Thomas expressed some skepticism that diversity offered a value in and of itself. 鈥淚’ve heard the word diversity quite a few times, and I don’t have a clue what it means,鈥� he said.

鈥楾he bigger question鈥�

This line of questioning suggests the court might not be as quick to end all racial preferences in admissions as many assumed, said Art Coleman, managing partner of EducationCounsel, a consulting firm.

鈥淭here is a majority of the court that is uncomfortable at some level with the notion of the consideration of race in admissions,鈥� he said. 鈥淏ut I think the bigger question is what they do about that.鈥�

While some observers have questioned whether the court would ultimately end even race-neutral, voluntary integration programs in K-12, Coleman said he doesn鈥檛 see the justices leaning that way. Instead, the legal question for the court is whether a student gets some 鈥渕aterial benefit,鈥� like admission or a scholarship, because of their race. That, he said, could have implications for 鈥渃ollege counselors who are guiding students to and through the admissions process.鈥� 

The liberal justices pushed attorneys for the plaintiffs to explain whether eliminating racial preferences in college admissions would result in a lack of racial diversity across society as a whole. Prelogar, representing the U.S. government, said during the UNC hearing that it is 鈥渃ritically important鈥� to have diversity in the military, and then added during the Harvard arguments that removing race-conscious measures would have 鈥渄estabilizing ramifications in just about every important industry in America.鈥�

The two hearings offered a history lesson on the nation鈥檚 unfinished work to redress its racist past. Speaking on behalf of UNC, David Hinojosa, director of the Educational Opportunities Project at the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights, said Black students can be discouraged from applying to the university when they see Confederate statues on campus or witness demonstrations by white supremacy groups. 

The plaintiffs argued that the court鈥檚 decision in Brown v. Board of Education, ending desegregation in K-12, should have applied to race-conscious admissions in college. That prompted a strong response from Prelogar.

鈥淭here is a world of difference between the situation this court confronted in Brown, the 鈥榮eparate but equal鈥� doctrine that was designed to exclude African Americans based on notions of racial inferiority,鈥� she said. The court recognized, she said, that such discrimination affected children鈥檚 鈥渉earts and minds in a way unlikely ever to be undone.鈥�

Did you use this article in your work?

We鈥檇 love to hear how 蜜桃影视鈥檚 reporting is helping educators, researchers, and policymakers.