Banning Race-Conscious Admissions in the United States

March 1, 2024

Academic institutions in the United States are seeing a notable surge in applicant diversity after a convoluted history of racial discrimination in admissions practices. This trend is exemplified by the remarkable milestone observed in American law schools, where the current student body boasts unprecedented levels of racial diversity, with students from marginalized backgrounds comprising over 43% of enrollees. (1)

Many of these academic institutions have also incorporated a more inclusive and holistic approach towards their admissions policies. Admission processes consider a broader scope of the application, considering aspects like GPA, reference letters, personal statements, essays, and lived personal experiences/diverse backgrounds. Yet, it doesn’t entirely account for the generational impacts of racial segregation and prejudice in the United States that made it more challenging to remediate the results of families who were unable to obtain education and high employment and remained in generational poverty. In consequence, affirmative action attempts to bring race back into the equation and create a more racially diverse playing field. 

SUPREME COURT RULING: RACE-BASED ADMISSIONS IN HIGHER EDUCATION

Correspondingly, on June 29, 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in a split 6 to 3 that affirmative action is unconstitutional. They advocated against colleges and universities admitting students based on race. The case focused solely on admissions and did not consider affirmative action in the school's recruitment and employment efforts. This decision followed the rulings of two cases: the Students for Fair Admissions v. President and Fellows of Harvard and the Students for Fair Admissions v. University of North Carolina. 

The case against Harvard University argued that their admission policies discriminated against Asian American applicants. The case against the University of North Carolina contested that the University discriminated against White and Asian American applicants. On the contrary, both institutions denied the accusations by adding that they considered race as only one factor of a broader scope of considerations. The cases were brought by the Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA), a non-profit organization founded by Edward Blum in 2014, intended to challenge affirmative action in schools. 

One of the Supreme Court’s main arguments against affirmative action relied on the notion that it violated the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. (2) This decision immediately impacted admissions practices and rejected any prior explanation for race-conscious admissions policies in post-secondary institutions. It also denies the possibility for universities and colleges to ask students about their race but allows them to share how their identity and experiences create a more inclusive campus environment. 

WHAT IS AFFIRMATIVE ACTION?

Affirmative action seeks to recognize underrepresented and disadvantaged groups and increase their representation in areas such as employment, education, and business. In the context of post-secondary institutions, the practice systematically affects the admissions processes by enhancing diversity and representation. Some admission boards highly consider the lived experiences of Black, Hispanic and other minority students, acknowledging the impact of race on their opportunities to achieve higher education. 

The term was officially used for the first time in 1961 during the Kennedy Administration. President John F. Kennedy put into effect the Executive Order 10925 (E.O.), which directed federal contractors to “take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are treated equally without regard to race, colour, religion, sex, or national origin.”

But the genesis of affirmative action is better understood through the underappreciated history of people of colour in the development of the E.O. During Kennedy’s presidency, Hobart Taylor, a prominent African-American lawyer, suggested revising the E.O. to include “affirmative action.”

IN MODERN-DAY

Several universities and colleges have diversity officers who aim to ensure that admissions and hiring procedures consider the experiences of racial minorities (and other minorities, such as women, veterans, and disabled persons).  

Affirmative action is uniquely applied in several countries, such as its variations in policies in Brazil and Canada. In Canada, affirmative action is protected and deemed constitutional based on the equality section of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, where Subsection 2 of Section 15 confirms that it does “not preclude any law, program or activity that has as its object the amelioration of conditions of disadvantaged individuals or groups including those that are disadvantaged because of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.”

AFFIRMATIVE ACTION IN CAMPUS DIVERSITY

In public opinion, affirmative action is controversial as some critics believe it is a form of preferential treatment. Such as the cases brought forward by the Students for Fair Admissions claiming that affirmative action unfairly disadvantages applicants of White and Asian backgrounds. 

Another way to observe the situation is to understand it from a perspective of racial inclusion in a broader academic narrative that historically never considered the lived realities of racialized people. Listening to people of colour in the academic realm is often scarce, but it can be approached and reaffirmed by people alike. Academic institutions profit from creating more diverse classrooms as they often compose high classroom GPA averages, more diverse student bodies, and more equitable policy-making. Leveraging these benefits can be more effective when the admission board members also come from varying backgrounds. 

Previously, I advocated for including Indigenous statisticians in data collection within Indigenous communities to promote a more culturally intuitive understanding of their communities, pillars, and social problems. Similarly, this benefit translates into admissions policies if people of colour are part of the admissions process and are representative figures who can relate to applicants. When affirmative action is properly researched, studied, and understood from the perspective of marginalized individuals, we can appoint people who are representative of its impact and importance.

The Supreme Court’s decision concerned some of Kaplan’s 2023 law school admissions officers about how this will impact future classroom diversity. (3) However, post-secondary institutions can use alternative methods to gain diverse classrooms, like considering personal statements and essays highlighting an applicant's identity and their contributions to the community. Crucially, this adheres to the Supreme Court ruling, as it doesn't explicitly inquire about a candidate's race but provides them with the agency to share their experiences wherever it is relevant. Moreover, this strategy empowers applicants to assert their identities and narratives authentically. Rather than being confined to checkboxes or predetermined categories, individuals can convey their lived experiences, enhancing the integrity and inclusivity of the admissions process.