Posted by:
Henry Bemis
(
)
Date: June 29, 2023 03:18PM
Here is the text of the ruling:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/20-1199_hgdj.pdf"In a case that involved admissions for Harvard University and the the University of North Carolina, the Supreme Court has disallowed even small consideration of race as a factor in college admissions. It is reported that many other schools have used those two schools' policies as a basis for their own admission policies."
COMMENT: Not true. Although the court rejected systematic, institutional, consideration of race, the court added:
"At the same time, as all parties agree, nothing in this
opinion should be construed as prohibiting universities
from considering an applicant’s discussion of how race affected his or her life, be it through discrimination, inspiration, or otherwise."
It seems to me that this is how it should be. Race is considered in the context of an individual applicant's life experiences, not as a means to rectify historical or current injustices of society at large. On this view, a privileged black applicant would not have a 'systemic' advantage over a disadvantaged white applicant who was otherwise equally qualified.
__________________________________________
"IMO this may not come out in a manner that people expect. For instance, Asian Americans often have higher grades, test scores, etc. when applying to Harvard and other schools, and may possibly greatly benefit from this decision."
COMMENT: But that is the very heart of 'equal protection.' Race per se becomes entirely irrelevant regardless of the effect of such equal protection on admissions statistics. The fact that someone might be concerned about such an outcome arguably displays a prejudicial attitude against Asians.
_______________________________________
"Universities have warned that getting rid of affirmative action would significantly impact the diversity of their student bodies, with Harvard arguing in court briefs that taking race out of its admissions process would reduce enrollment of Black students at the school from 14% to 6% of its student body, and Hispanic enrollment from 14% to 9%....the University of Michigan said in a court brief that after it adopted race-neutral policies, its Black population decreased by 44% between 2006 and 2021 as a result, even as Michigan’s population of college-age African Americans increased."
COMMENT: According to the Court diversity is no longer an adequate justification under the strict scrutiny exceptions of the equal protection clause. But again, racial diversity might indirectly find its way into the admissions outcome through individual consideration of the life experiences of qualified black applicants.
________________________________________
It's also unknow how this will affect the service academies.
COMMENT: I believe they are exempted.
_________________________________________
In any event, I think the SC ruling was correct. As a liberal, I would rather society focus on the social injustices and unjust inequalities that exist within society at large at the root level, which deprive many blacks, and the working poor generally, of reasonable opportunities for an advanced education; for example, due to lack of income, affordable housing, and a stable, supporting family environment. It doesn't help to address such injustices by rewarding those who somehow managed to compete for a place at Harvard, while leaving behind the vast numbers who never had a reasonable opportunity for an advanced education in the first place.