A few thoughts on the Supreme Court decision on race-conscious admissions
I’ve been thinking about the Supreme Court’s ruling regarding race-conscious admissions policies. On LinkedIn, Eldrin Deas prompted me to write something about that, but I wanted to do some reading first, because there’s a big difference between working in and thinking about higher education and actually studying it. So, I spent some time reading a bunch of articles from sources I trust. I found many resources helpful (such as https://www.vox.com/scotus/23616868/supreme-court-affirmative-action-harvard-unc-students-fair-admissions-john-roberts and https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/23405267/affirmative-action-supreme-court-ruling-race-harvard-unc-chapel-hill and https://apple.news/nowPlaying/AOjgy-aIiRW6fzKdxb6A9ew). As a result, I have some thoughts about the ruling itself, what could be done next, and how the ruling is indicative of larger issues I’m seeing repeated over and over.
Numerous experts have pointed out that admissions policies at “selective” institutions (and oh, do I dislike the input-based metrics for institutional quality that are conveyed by that term) affect only a very small number of college applicants (see https://www.chronicle.com/article/the-supreme-courts-admissions-ruling-mainly-affects-selective-colleges-theyre-a-tiny-slice-of-higher-ed and https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2023/07/03/opinion/for-most-college-students-affirmative-action-was-not-enough.html).
So, on the one hand, an argument could be made that this Supreme Court ruling affects few students and institutions, and we should be putting our attention elsewhere. But there’s little doubt that “selective” institutions convey many benefits (just look at where our Supreme Court justices went to school), so any increase in bias to accessing those institutions, even for a small number of people, has effects.
Further, no one yet knows how higher education institutions will respond to this ruling, but many suspect the effects will be felt not only in “selective” institutions and not only in admissions policies, but in many other institutions and in many other areas of those institutions, in ways that hurt both minoritized students and white students, as well as faculty (see https://www.forbes.com/sites/shaunharper/2023/06/29/supreme-court-ends-affirmative-action-in-college-admissions---heres-what-will-happen-on-campuses/?sh=2cdb563675d4 and https://www.chronicle.com/article/some-colleges-will-no-longer-consider-race-in-awarding-student-scholarships).
And, this ruling fuels a long line of decisions, policies, and public statements by prominent politicians and others castigating the idea that structural racism exists and must be addressed, despite this idea being endorsed by government (https://blog.nimhd.nih.gov/archives-2021/news_feed/nimhd-director-statement-in-support-of-nih-efforts-to-address-structural-racism), private (https://www.apa.org/about/policy/racism-apology), and corporate organizations (https://www.vox.com/scotus/23616868/supreme-court-affirmative-action-harvard-unc-students-fair-admissions-john-roberts).
From my vantage point, this ruling was a clear setback to the goals of equity, justice, and excellence in higher education and society. Justice Jackson wrote it far better and more convincingly than I ever could (https://thehill.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2023/06/Jackson-dissent.pdf). So, what can we do now?
I think state institutions have an obligation to admit and educate their state citizens in an equitable way. So, I wonder if there’s a way forward that combines Texas’ “admit top 10% of every high school class” policy (https://www.insidehighered.com/news/admissions/2023/06/20/what-could-colleges-do-preserve-diversity-without-affirmative-action) with stratified selection.
Basically, what if “selective” (ugh) state institutions committed to a more criterion-based admissions process (as opposed to the relative, normative-based pursuit of the “best and the brightest” which…yuck: https://www.chronicle.com/article/how-the-supreme-court-ruling-will-change-admissions) where they said something like, “If you are in the top 30th percentile of your high school class, you are qualified to be admitted” and then they did random selection within stratified samples of those top 30th (or 25th, whatever number works) percentile applicants? States could pick any number of variables upon which to stratify, perhaps in ways that best represent the state. For example, county, SES, gender, and yes even race (although I could see people trying to outlaw that one, sadly) could all be used to create strata that matched the percentages of those variables in the state (e.g., county X has 3% of people in the state, so stratification would ensure 3% of admitted student offers go to applicants in county X), and then random selection within that strata would lead to admissions offers.
I don’t think it’s possible to hold state institutions to matching the percentages across those variables for their admitted class; applicants have choices and many will not choose the state institution. But, you could hold state institutions to matching the percentages across those variables in their initial offers of admission, and perhaps ask them to continue to draw from relevant strata as admitted applicants decline, as possible. I don’t think this runs afoul of previous Supreme Court rulings about quotas (https://www.vox.com/scotus/23616868/supreme-court-affirmative-action-harvard-unc-students-fair-admissions-john-roberts) because every person in the state would have the same percentage chance of enrolling with their matched peers. But, I’m no legal expert so…take this as just an idea.
Beyond that idea, the arguments in this NYT article (https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2023/07/03/opinion/for-most-college-students-affirmative-action-was-not-enough.html) made a lot of sense to me, particularly those around admitting more transfer students and enhancing quality and outcomes at the institutions of higher education the vast majority of students attend. Of course, that assumes those institutions aren’t doing “enough” or “well enough.” And I see another, huge problem there: blaming “non-selective” institutions (really big ugh!), is just passing the blame, something I see happening more and more in society.
Passing around the blame is a tried-and-true strategy for getting nothing done: “it’s not the selective colleges fault, we should focus on the problems at the rest of the colleges” leads to “it’s not colleges’ fault, we should focus on the United States’ failing K-12 schools” leads to “it’s not schools’ fault, it’s parents and families, or lack thereof” and on and on. None of those statements are true, in my opinion, but there’s some truth in all of them. Each of those entities are doing far better than how they are often characterized and yet also, each could do better. More importantly, what I notice, each time the blame gets passed, is a lack of people willing to take responsibility and sacrifice.
Passing the blame from selective institutions to the “rest” of higher education lets the former off the hook, and further passing down the line does the same. It reminds me of the book “Leadership Without Easy Answers” (https://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674518582&content=reviews). Again, I’m no leadership scholar but the central thesis, as I recall it, rings true and relevant here: structural and societal problems require the people in those societies take responsibility and then sacrifice to fix those problems themselves by changing their behaviors and views. But, typically people do not want to do those things (admitting you are part of the problem is difficult for many), so instead they gravitate toward leaders who say, “It’s someone else’s fault, elect me and I’ll make them change” or “It’s no one’s fault, we can ‘policy’ our way out this.” People elect those leaders, because it’s easier to pass the blame, and when those leaders don’t deliver on their promises, because the problems require people to take responsibility and sacrifice, they kick out those leaders and elect the next ones promising a painless fix. On and on, with little to no progress as a result.
These “pass the blame” and “blame the leaders” things happen for lots of societal problems, such as when people try to ‘science’ their way out of the effects of climate change (yes, science has helped and will help in the future, but people have to change their behaviors, too). My point is, institutions of higher education can do some things to address societal inequality and therefore when access to those institutions is biased or threatened (as I believe it has been in this Supreme Court decision), that is a real problem that deserves attention. But let’s also be honest with ourselves: “fixing” higher education isn’t going to “fix” societal inequalities and racism. “Fixing” K-12 education won’t, either. And neither will “fixing” anything else to which we pass the blame next time. There aren’t any easy answers here. Instead, individual people, like me, need to take responsibility and make personal sacrifices (for example, agreeing to criterion-based eligibility to “selective” higher education institutions and subsequent random selection that might result in their child not being offered admissions despite being qualified) to fully realize this country’s goals of equity, justice, and excellence. I didn’t see anything in the majority Supreme Court ruling that made it more likely that people would do these things; sadly, I see the opposite.
Music played while writing this post: https://music.apple.com/us/playlist/pl.550dd8b18e4c47fa8445040299256063