newYou can now listen to Fox News articles.
Universities are taking note of this, and the Supreme Court will not tolerate the fanatical and unjustified dependence on race that is standard in admissions tests.
In Equitable Admissions Students v. University of North Carolina, the Supreme Court held that Harvard University and University of North Carolina gave too much consideration to racial preferences when weighing student applicants. Chief Justice John Roberts said in the majority opinion that too many universities “erroneously conclude that the touchstone of an individual’s identity is not the challenges overcome, the skills built, or the lessons learned, but the color of the skin. Japan’s constitutional history is not like that.” Accept that choice. ”
This is an important victory for individual rights, but the courts have not ruled sufficiently. Courts should have held that race played no role in college admissions. Instead, the court chose to maintain a weak precedent that left the door ajar against ongoing discrimination.
Supreme Court Rejects Affirmative Action in Ruling Involving Race in College Admissions Decisions
The Supreme Court added some ancillary pieces to the shaky case law regarding racial precedence in admissions, but should have demolished the entire structure.
In 2003, the Supreme Court ruled in Grutter v. Bollinger that universities can consider race in admissions decisions to build student diversity (this is called discrimination on the basis of race). can be rephrased).
The court said the university has a keen interest in the “educational benefits” that come from racial diversity, which, according to the court, promotes “interracial understanding” and combats racial stereotypes. “This is for non-minority students to learn that ‘minority perspectives’ do not exist.” “It is a mystery how ensuring acceptance for racial minorities promotes diversity of perspectives in the absence of minority perspectives.
But the court set limits. Universities cannot set quotas or racially balance student numbers. Also, racial preferences can only be relied upon when racially neutral methods of achieving a diverse student population do not work. And there is a time limit. Racial preference must be abolished when it is no longer necessary to achieve diversity.
While these safeguards may sound draconian, Glatter asked the court to “presume” that the university was acting “in good faith.” In other words, if the university says, “We’re doing fine,” and the plaintiff can’t prove otherwise, the court will shrug and move on.
Glatter also avoided discussing how much diversity is enough. Universities can discriminate until they reach a mysterious “critical group” of racial minorities. Again, the court leaves the question of how much is too much to the university.
Mr. Glatter’s presumption of “good faith” supported the Supreme Court’s acceptance of the government’s claim that it was “acting in good faith in the advancement of the public interest,” a lawsuit that upheld racism on trains, It’s an unsettling echo of Plessey v. Ferguson. Not for the nuisance or oppression of a particular class. ”
Glatter ranted about the “rigorous” screening process for college admissions, but the decision was just an indulgence that gave universities the freedom to discriminate. The Supreme Court’s failure to dismiss this sleepy equal rights sentinel will ensure that colleges continue to value color over achievements.
But the outrageous discrimination at Harvard and North Carolina was blatant enough to sound alarm bells even under the Grutter administration. Both universities are surprisingly dependent on race in student enrollment.
For example, an Asian-American student with the highest academic achievement is less likely to be admitted to Harvard University than an African-American student in the fourth lowest tier. The chance of admission for top-tier African-American students is well over 50%, while the chance of admission for Asian-American students in the same stratum is about 10%. So is North Carolina.
These universities are not alone. Many schools consider Harvard’s approach to be the gold standard for admissions.
Court evidence showed that neither Harvard nor the University of North Carolina had considered the kind of race-neutral alternative Mr. Glatter called for (under the troubling premise of goodwill, of course). For example, plaintiffs argue that Harvard University could increase racial diversity if it gave up prioritization of predominantly white, wealthy legacy candidates (alumni, donors, children of faculty). We proved that. Similarly, a focus on socio-economically disadvantaged students will naturally lead to greater racial diversity. Neither university bothers to try these alternatives.
CLICK HERE TO GET THE OPINIONS NEWSLETTER
Chief Justice Roberts said Harvard University and UNC have used illegal stereotyping, believing that skin color says something about a person’s personality. As the presiding judge put it, “The whole point of the Equal Protection Clause is that specializing someone because of the color of their skin is not discriminating because they are from the city or the suburbs or because they can’t play the violin very well.” It’s different from dealing with ‘or well. ”
CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP
In any case, the movement for fair admissions of students is a step toward racial equality, if not the leap many courtroom observers had hoped. By doing so, the courts inform the universities that they will not take the word that they are behaving themselves. It also fixes some of Grutter’s more obvious flaws. For example, as Mr. Glatter suggested, he rejects the notion that universities are obligated to show unbridled respect for racial gerrymandering.
If courts start taking Grutter more seriously, like Thursday’s ruling, it could lead universities to lean toward more covert methods like proxy discrimination. Schools employ “neutral” methods such as postal code allocation for the purpose of discrimination. This is already happening in admission-only K-12 schools.
At Thomas Jefferson High School, for example, school administrators adjusted the admissions process in a covert effort to reduce Asian-American enrollment. A lawsuit against the high school filed by my employer, the Pacific Law Foundation, will soon go to the Supreme Court to ask how this discrimination by proxy is addressed.
Student for Fair Admissions hopes the Supreme Court will continue to uphold true equality.
