American college campuses may look and feel a little different for the incoming freshman classes this coming fall of 2024. Last June, the United States Supreme Court decided to disallow race-conscious admissions practices in higher education, otherwise known as “Affirmative Action programs”.
The “check the race box” questions have been struck down to ensure that admissions offices are not allowed to give a boost to historically disadvantaged groups primarily based on their race. In a country with a harrowing history of slavery and ongoing racial injustices, many citizens are asking themselves what this decision will mean in practice for the college admissions process.
The usage of race-based questions gave elite schools a tangible way to repair historical injustices against minority groups by allowing them to receive strong preference in their application process compared to other more privileged candidates. This practice is now considered entirely unlawful. Not only that, but admissions offices will be strictly monitored to ensure that no “proxy attempts” are being used to accept students based on their race through indirect means. All public and private institutions that receive federal funding are subject to strict compliance with this decision.
Where it Began
What is the basis of the drastic verdict to cut race questions out of college admissions? Indeed, though seemingly radical, the conviction that relying on a person’s race to distinguish them in matters before the law has always been unconstitutional. In the 237 page Supreme Court decision published in June of 2023, the logic is crystal clear: distinctions made between citizens based primarily on factors outside of their control go against the very principle of equality. Nonetheless, the phrase “melting pot” used to refer to the nature of American society was founded upon the value of cultural diversity.
However, the pot began to simmer back in 2014. A group called Students for Fair Admissions filed lawsuits against the elite schools of Harvard and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. The students claimed that the universities performed discriminatory practices to meet diversity quotas that unfairly penalized Asian American and white students from the overall acceptance into the schools. They argued that these practices violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution by favoring certain racial groups over others.
At the time, Harvard and University of North Carolina argued that they were exercising their constitutional and moral right to meet their diversity goals and use race in their admissions decisions to secure these objectives.
In practice, the legal end of Affirmative Action will not be an end to all diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives in college admissions processes
But the Supreme Court’s ruling asked whether these practices were lawful under the Equal Protection Clause. The foundational principle of this Clause does not permit any distinctions of law based on race or color.
Ultimately, the Court established that among the many factors that go into admissions decisions, the use of racial classifications “must comply with strict scrutiny, may never use race as a stereotype or negative, and must—at some point—end.”
Defending Educational Diversity
Elevating this principle to the higher educational arena, the original practice of Affirmative Action programs was legally justified by the compelling goal of educational diversity. While commendable, this goal is often more theoretical in nature than in practice.
Among others, the interests of educational diversity are often summarized as “training future leaders, acquiring new knowledge based on diverse outlooks, promoting a robust marketplace of ideas, and preparing engaged and productive citizens.” Since these cannot be sufficiently subjected to meaningful judicial review through measurable outcomes, it cannot be justified as a basis for admissions practices.
In practice, the legal end of Affirmative Action will not be an end to all diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives in college admissions processes, nor in other areas such as business and culture. Admissions officers will be pushed more than before to consider the defining features of individual college essays and they will ask questions that prompt the applicant to reveal certain aspects of their life experiences that will inevitably point to their race.
However, the goal is that they will work to understand the whole context of the applicant and how these life experiences have shaped their grit and stamina, not the primary fact that they belong to a specific ethnic group or not.
Seeing the World through Two Valuable Lenses
Outside of the legal decision, the core questions remain: what human values can be defended from both sides of the decision? Why is using race as a determining factor in admissions unconstitutional, and why is seeking a racially diverse student body in higher education sufficiently compelling to some, but not to others?
For those who consider Affirmative Action to be un constitutional, using race as a preferential factor takes away from the inherent individual qualities of a student’s merits
The answers point to the central values that define the social fabric that comprises the American political body.
For the defenders of the constitution, using race as a preferential factor takes away from the inherent individual qualities of a student’s merits. By treating race as a quota to fill, the approach quickly risks falling into illegitimate stereotyping, on all sides of the cube. Why? Because it erases the individuality of a person for what they bring to the table outside of their race. It places them into a box as a pawn of artificial quotas and does not guarantee unambiguous equal protection before the law. It is a dangerous and slippery slope, one that has caused America a great deal of burden and strife.
In the words of Justice Thomas, “The Constitution abhors classifications based on race, not only because those classifications can harm favored races or are based on illegitimate motives, but also because every time the government places citizens on racial registers and makes race relevant to the provision of burdens or benefits, it demeans us all.”
For those who defend racial diversity in education, a diverse student body positively influences society in abounding examples. Students learn better when they are brought together with students of other backgrounds. They learn new skills and knowledge not only practically, but socially and emotionally. A diverse pipeline of college graduates ensures a diverse workforce.
This is brought to further fruition when the results trickle down into the society at large: it strengthens the overall American economy by boosting employee morale, it better serves a diverse consumer base, and it allows for the exchange of perspectives that enrich an individual’s worldview beyond themselves. These of course are all noble and fundamental cultural values to be protected and defended.
Nonetheless, the dangers of using race-based approaches in admissions pose too great a challenge for American society. Universities will place more emphasis on the individual contributions through essays and targeted questionnaires to accept students. This may result in tangible differences of quotas and percentages, but it allows for a stronger priority on individuality, which is at the heart of the principle of equal protection before the law.