Last week, Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA) presented their cases against Harvard and the University of North Carolina to the U.S. Supreme Court. Alongside arguments from defendants and the Executive Branch, the proceedings sparked contentious debates on the future of race-conscious college admissions.
While SFFA maintained that racial preferences are fundamentally flawed, advocates for race-based affirmative action warned of dire consequences for campus diversity if these policies were abolished. Despite this, figures such as North Carolina Solicitor General Ryan Park and U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar argued that race plays a minimal role in admissions at Harvard and UNC, adding a layer of contradiction to their defense.
Associate Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson echoed these sentiments, with Justice Jackson highlighting the existence of 40 non-racial factors in UNC’s holistic admissions model during her involvement in the case, despite recusal from the Harvard proceedings.
The debate extended to the definition of diversity itself. Justice Sotomayor emphasized racial diversity, linking it closely with cultural diversity, a viewpoint criticized for oversimplifying the broader dimensions of diversity. Legal scholar David Bernstein, in an interview with the Wall Street Journal, emphasized the complexity of ethnic diversity beyond racial categorization, highlighting substantial within-group variations among Black, Asian American, and Hispanic American populations.
Moreover, socioeconomic diversity emerged as a critical issue, with statistics revealing significant disparities in academic achievement based on income levels, surpassing those based on race. Associate Justice Clarence Thomas cited data showing that a majority of Harvard students come from affluent backgrounds, raising questions about the actual impact of race-based admissions on true diversity.
The hearings also delved into the temporal aspect of race-conscious admissions, with justices pressing for clarity on when such policies might no longer be necessary. While past rulings like Justice Sandra Day O’Connor’s in Grutter (2003) suggested a limited duration for these policies, attorneys representing Harvard and UNC failed to provide a definitive timeline or criteria for the cessation of race-conscious admissions.
The issue of discrimination against Asian American applicants took center stage, with evidence suggesting biased admission practices that disadvantage this demographic group. Arguments presented by SFFA highlighted systematic disparities, revealing lower admission rates and discriminatory personal ratings for Asian American applicants compared to their peers.
In conclusion, the hearings underscored profound disagreements over the role of race in college admissions and its implications for diversity, equity, and fairness. As the nation grapples with these complex issues, the Supreme Court’s eventual decision will likely shape the future landscape of higher education admissions policies.
Author Bio: Wenyuan Wu, Ph.D., Executive Director of Californians for Equal Rights Foundation
