In response to the recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling that prohibits the use of affirmative action in college admissions, Rep. Michelle Steel has reintroduced legislation that would require colleges and universities to disclose their use of personality traits in the admissions process. Steel argues that some schools may still employ personality tests as a substitute for racial discrimination.
In 2014, Harvard University faced accusations of discrimination against academically strong Asian American applicants due to its use of a “personal rating” system, which included factors like being a “good person” or being likable. Court documents revealed that an internal investigation conducted by Harvard in 2013 uncovered bias against Asian American applicants. Student records filed by Students For Fair Admission supported these claims, showing that Asian American applicants scored lower on these personal traits.
Although California banned race-conscious admissions in public schools in 1996, private colleges and universities in the state remained exempt from this ban. Private institutions like Chapman University, USC, Pepperdine University, and the California Institute of Technology still use personal insight questions in their applications to evaluate a student’s fit and potential.
Steel’s bill would mandate that schools accepting federal funds publicly disclose their use of personality tests in admissions. This includes providing a statement on their website and application materials explaining the rationale and process behind considering personality traits in admission decisions.
The aim of the bill is to increase transparency and ensure that all students and their families are fully aware of which schools use these tests. According to Steel, the legislation is necessary to shed light on the process and scoring criteria used for these personality traits.
The recent Supreme Court decision on affirmative action faced divided opinions, with the conservative majority voting in favor of striking down race-conscious admissions policies. However, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, the court’s first Latina, wrote a dissenting opinion, stating that the decision sets back progress made in ensuring equality in education.
Steel, an immigrant from Korea, supports the Supreme Court’s decision, seeing it as a step forward in the fight for educational equality. Rep. Young Kim, another Orange County lawmaker from Korea, also considers the decision a victory for students of all backgrounds.
Following the Supreme Court decision, a civil rights group supported by the NAACP and Lawyers for Civil Rights filed a complaint challenging legacy admissions at Harvard. The complaint cites Harvard data revealing that 70% of donor-related and legacy applicants are White, and being a legacy student increases one’s chances of admission significantly. The complaint argues that legacy preference at Harvard lacks merit and unfairly denies qualified students of color admission opportunities.
Overall, Rep. Michelle Steel’s legislation seeks to promote transparency in college admissions by requiring schools to disclose their use of personality tests. This move comes in response to concerns of potential discrimination against Asian American applicants and the recent Supreme Court decision on affirmative action.
Denial of responsibility! VigourTimes is an automatic aggregator of Global media. In each content, the hyperlink to the primary source is specified. All trademarks belong to their rightful owners, and all materials to their authors. For any complaint, please reach us at – [email protected]. We will take necessary action within 24 hours.
