One nonprofit group is working hard to overturn a precedent that allows colleges to use race as a factor when considering applications.
If the Supreme Court rules along ideological lines, as many expect, schools will no longer have that option, and there could be consequences, according to the Washington Examiner’s education reporter Jeremiah Poff.
The high court heard a pair of cases on Monday that challenge the constitutionality of affirmative action in college admissions, a product of the 2003 Grutter v. Bollinger opinion.
The first case, brought forth by a group called Students for Fair Admissions, focuses on Harvard University’s alleged discrimination against Asian American students. The second, looking at the University of North Carolina, asks the broader question of whether race should be considered in college admissions at all.
HARVARD BEGS SUPREME COURT TO KEEP AFFIRMATIVE ACTION AND PROTECT ‘STUDENT BODY DIVERSITY’
Currently, they’re allowed to do so on a very limited basis as a kind of secondary consideration. But that could change if a 6-3 conservative majority is reached, Poff said Tuesday night.
“If you have two students that have the same SAT scores, the same GPA, OK, well, [colleges would say] ‘We’re gonna admit the black student or the Hispanic student over the Asian or the white student,’” he explained to EWTN News Nightly host Tracy Sabol.
“So they would no longer be able to do that. They’d have to look at other factors to make the distinction between the students,” Poff added.
During oral arguments, Justice Samuel Alito pressed Harvard’s lawyer, Seth Waxman, on the university’s procedures for assigning personal scores, which consider integrity, kindness, and confidence.
According to the results, the Ivy League school rated Asian Americans at the lowest level. The advocacy group said the school then used these scores to limit admissions from the demographic unjustifiably.
“What accounts for that?” Alito asked Waxman. “It has to be one of two things. It has to be that they really do lack integrity, courage, kindness, and empathy to the same degree as students of other races, or there has to be something wrong with this personal score.”
Waxman attempted to downplay the score, saying it was only used “as a matter of triage” to help sort applications.
“Once the subcommittees and committees meet, it ‘fades into the background.’ It is not the basis of admissions decisions,” he argued.
CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER
The university also claimed race is necessary to consider so the school can ensure it is “racially diverse.”
“Student body diversity makes our businesses more innovative and globally competitive, our scientists more creative, our medical professionals more effective, and our military more cohesive,” Waxman added.
The newest justice, Ketanji Brown Jackson, recused herself from the Harvard case because she was formerly a member of the Board of Overseers for the Ivy League school.
But, as Poff pointed out, she did participate in oral arguments in the UNC case and was very much concerned about how this could lead to equal protection violations.
Notably, Justice Elena Kagan did not recuse herself, despite being the former dean of Harvard Law School.
When asked when an opinion is likely to come out, Poff said, “Probably sometime in the spring.”
But “most of the controversial decisions don’t come until June. So that will probably be when,” he added.
