In the next few days, the U.S. Supreme Court is expected to decide whether or not colleges and universities can continue to consider race in their student admissions process, a practice known as affirmative action.
The ruling results from the Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA) lawsuits against Harvard and the University of North Carolina (UNC), which saw the court have oral arguments last year.
The conservative majority court appeared ready to eliminate admissions, with race being a factor in decision-making, despite being in law for almost 50 years.
Many have concerns that if the court rules against affirmative action, it could damage underrepresented demographics such as Black and Latine students during the application process.
The Lawsuits
Lawsuits against affirmative action in the past include the University of California v Bakke 1978, Grutter v Bollinger 2003, and Fisher v University of Texas 2013 and 2016. Still, most recently, they have come from SFFA.
SFFA alleges Harvard’s admissions policies discriminate against Asian American applicants, claiming that the university’s admissions process violates Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
They have argued that Harvard consistently rates Asian American students lower on “likeability,” “courage,” and kindness.
They first sued Harvard and UNC in November 2014 and then appealed the decision after the court’s ruling in the two universities’ favor.
In 2021, SFFA petitioned the Supreme Court to review the case after two federal courts ruled against them.
In January 2022, the court accepted the petition and consolidated the Harvard and UNC cases.
The court heard oral arguments in both cases in October 2022, and we now await the decision.
How did affirmative action come about?
In the 1960s, Presidents John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnon passed legislation that required government contractors ‘affirmative action to ensure equal employment opportunities for women and minorities.
Since then, many institutions have taken steps to consider race, among other factors, in their recruitment process to increase the representation of women and people of color.
Colleges such as Harvard use holistic review to evaluate applicants, considering facts such as academic achievement, athletics, legacy status, and race.
During the case in 2019, Massachusetts District Court Judge Allison D. Burroughs ruled in Harvard’s favor, stating, “Harvard’s admissions program is narrowly tailored to achieve a diverse class and the benefits that from therefrom.”
According to Reuters, nine states have banned the use of race in admissions policies at public colleges and universities: Arizona, California, Florida, Idaho, Michigan, Nebraska, New Hampshire, Oklahoma, and Washington.
What’s at stake if affirmative action is banned?
Many legal experts believe that the Supreme Court will declare affirmative action unconstitutional this month, and few are sure of what effects the decision may have on the makeup of universities’ student bodies.
Affirmative action has proven effective in increasing diversity in higher education. Some experts have pointed to institutions such as the University of California, which banned admissions based on race, in 1996 through Proposition 209, resulting in a decrease of African American students.
In 1995, one year before the passage of Proposition 209, 5.7% percent of the students enrolled at the University of California, Berkeley, were African American. Still, from 2005 to 2020, the enrollment percentage of African American students fluctuated between 3.3 and 3.7% percent.
Harvard and SFFA both hired economists to simulate how the racial composition of the Harvard College Class of 2019 would change if race were not considered in its application process.
It was found that the percentage of Black and Hispanic students admitted would have dropped, while the number of white and Asian American students admitted would have risen.
If the Supreme Court rules against the two universities, any school that uses race or ethnicity to boost a person’s application immediately has to stop the practice.
They will have to look at race-neutral ways to support diversity in their admissions.
How has the public responded?
Students and families protested this year outside the Supreme Court, with one side insisting that race should not be considered a factor in admissions processes.
They carried signs saying “Equal education rights for all” and “Judge by the content of characters. Not skin color.”
However, on the other side, families and students defended affirmative action’s benefits and necessity.
They argued that diverse student bodies, particularly at elite institutions, directly contribute to better college experiences for all.
AP-NORC conducted a poll and found that most Americans oppose the banning of affirmative action, with two-thirds of adults thinking the Supreme Court should permit the consideration of race and ethnicity of applicants in the admissions process.
However, they also fought for the importance of race in contextualizing their applications.
Protestors said it is impractical and unethical not to consider race when evaluating their applications; race has important implications for who they are, how they think, and what they’ve achieved.
Randall Barnes writes in HBCU Pulse that it does not make sense to blame affirmative action for not getting into a university. Instead, questions should be raised about the low admission rates in general.
This came after Asian American Jon Wang applied to six universities and did not get accepted into any; he then blamed affirmative action for this.
Barnes reported the data found from the U.S. News and World Report that Asian-American students comprise the highest racial population at four out of six institutions Wang applied to; meanwhile, Black enrollment at three of the institutions didn’t even reach 5%.
How has the tech industry responded?
Companies such as Meta, Google, and Apple, filed a brief with the U.S. Supreme Court, signaling support for affirmative action programs at Harvard.
Many scholars have also said the decision’s impact will depend on how radically the justices redefine what institutions can and cannot do to improve campus diversity.
College of Education at the University of Maryland’s Dean, Kimberly Griffin, told Science, “We’re all on pins and needles.”
“Will the court’s ruling go beyond race-conscious undergraduate admissions and address graduate students, financial aid, faculty hiring, and any program with identity-conscious elements?”
There are additional questions surrounding how the ruling might reinforce or conflict with the growing number of state laws aimed at restricting diversity programs, many of which address the significant underrepresentation of Black, Latine, and Native American people in science, technology, engineering, and maths fields.
#blacktech #entrepreneur #tech #afrotech #womenintech #supportblackbusiness #blackexcellence #technology #blackbusiness #blacktechmatters #blackowned #blackgirlmagic #blackpreneur #startup #innovation #hbcu #techtrap #blackownedbusiness #pitchblack #autographedmemories #blacksintech #shopblack #wocintech #nba #blackwomen #repost #hbcubuzz #blackwomenintech #startupbusiness #nails
Source link
