The Supreme Court’s recent ruling has effectively banned affirmative action in universities that receive federal funding, marking the end of a 50-year experiment in promoting campus diversity. This decision disregards decades of precedent without acknowledging it. However, this ruling does not mean that universities should stop their efforts to create diverse student bodies, nor does it signal the end of legal debates on the matter. It merely invites further litigation on whether admissions offices are adhering to the court’s rules. In light of this, universities will explore alternative admissions strategies.
The ruling leaves little hope for any race-conscious admissions policy to withstand court scrutiny. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. invoked Brown v. Board of Education and argued that eliminating racial discrimination means eliminating it completely. While he claimed that the court was respecting precedent, he simultaneously criticized the court’s previous reasoning. The chief justice questioned the purpose of race-conscious admissions policies, which had been approved in the past, suggesting that they cause harm by advantaging one group over another. He also critiqued the lack of a defined end date for the admissions policies at Harvard and the University of North Carolina in the case.
Now, universities face challenges in reworking their admissions practices due to the confusion surrounding the new rules. Many institutions will likely replace race-conscious policies with alternative strategies that promote diversity and are less susceptible to legal challenges. One option is to eliminate “legacy” admissions policies, which give preference to children of alumni. Another is to end “merit scholarships,” which are given to desirable students regardless of financial need. Universities could also increase outreach efforts to well-qualified minority applicants. However, institutions like the University of Michigan have found such methods to be ineffective.
Some public universities have implemented admissions preferences for in-state applicants who excel academically. The University of California system used this policy after California banned race-conscious admissions. However, studies have shown that this change resulted in only a 4% increase in underrepresented minority enrollment compared to the 20% increase seen under affirmative action policies.
The Supreme Court did not completely disregard the consideration of students’ backgrounds and circumstances in holistic reviews of their profiles. Admissions officers can still recognize applicants who have overcome challenges related to their race or bring unique perspectives to campus. Application materials like essays and recommendations can paint a comprehensive picture of individual applicants without assigning specific values to race. Holistic review policies have been found to increase underrepresented minority enrollment by about 7%.
A promising approach is to provide a boost to applicants from low-income backgrounds. This would enhance socioeconomic diversity on campus, which is valuable in its own right. The racial wealth gap is even greater than the racial income gap, so using wealth as an admissions factor would benefit Black and Latino applicants while rewarding students who have excelled despite difficult circumstances. UCLA Law School experienced success with this approach.
In 1978, when the court first upheld race-conscious university admissions, Justice Lewis F. Powell emphasized the importance of exposing future leaders to the diverse ideas and perspectives of the nation. Campus diversity benefits all students, not just those from underrepresented groups. This principle was true then, and it remains true now.
[HTML Comments: This well-reasoned opinion explores the recent Supreme Court ruling that effectively bans affirmative action in federally-funded universities. The article highlights the potential alternatives that universities can consider to promote diversity while adhering to the new rules and addresses the challenges they face in rethinking their admissions practices. Additionally, the article suggests using socioeconomic factors as a means to enhance diversity on campus and discusses the importance of campus diversity for all students.]
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.
