The US Supreme Court has invalidated the practice of factoring an applicant’s race into university admissions decisions.
On Thursday, the highest court in the United States overturned the practice of taking an applicant’s race into consideration during university admissions. The decision of this court has resulted in the nullification of admissions plans at prestigious institutions such as Harvard and the University of North Carolina, the oldest private and public colleges in the nation, respectively. Consequently, these institutions are now compelled to explore alternative approaches to fostering diverse student populations.
American institutions that continue to employ such practices have been relying on a 2003 legal ruling by the highest court in the United States, specifically in the case of Grutter v. Bollinger. This ruling established that universities can constitutionally consider race as one of several factors, including grades, test scores, and other criteria, in order to promote diversity on campus. However, the decision announced on 29 June asserts that the institutions involved in the recent case under consideration have failed to adhere to the limitations on race-based admissions set forth in the Grutter v. Bollinger ruling.
The ruling will primarily impact prestigious institutions that have a highly selective admissions process and are known for their high tuition fees. Stella Flores, an education researcher at the University of Texas at Austin who focuses on examining the influence of state and federal policies on college accessibility, highlights this consequence.
Ripple effects of US Supreme Court’s verdict
According to Chief Justice John Roberts writing for the majority, US Supreme Court, universities have erroneously concluded that an individual’s identity is primarily determined by the color of their skin rather than the challenges overcome, skills developed, or lessons learned. He further emphasized that such a choice is not acceptable within our constitutional history.
The US Supreme Court’s 6-3 ruling, divided along ideological lines, illustrates the court’s shift towards conservatism during the tenure of Republican President Donald Trump, who nominated three justices to the nine-member bench.
According to Park, researcher at the University of Maryland, the lack of race-conscious admissions could also have negative implications for the diversity of aspiring scientists in future generations, as they receive their training at universities. Currently, Black and Hispanic workers face under-representation in the fields of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). A report from the Pew Research Center in Washington DC reveals that they comprise only 9% and 8%, respectively, of the entire STEM workforce in the United States.
With Black individuals constituting approximately 14% of the US population and Hispanic individuals accounting for nearly 19%, Park expresses deep concern about the state of STEM fields. Park also emphasizes that even with race-conscious admission policies in effect, the progress in STEM has not been satisfactory.
Alternative approaches
According to Timothy Welbeck, a civil-rights attorney and scholar specializing in law, race, and cultural studies at Temple University in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, certain institutions may now explore alternative approaches to enhance the diversity of their student populations.
Elite colleges have the option to implement additional measures such as discontinuing legacy admissions, a practice that grants preferential treatment to applicants with family members who are alumni.
