U.S. Supreme Court will revisit race in college admissions
The New York Times is reporting that the U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to revisit race in higher education admissions.
In the 2003 Grutter v. Bollinger decision, the court, in a 5-4 vote, upheld the affirmative action admissions policy of the University of Michigan Law School, saying that the Constitution “does not prohibit the law school’s narrowly tailored use of race in admissions decisions to further a compelling interest in obtaining the educational benefits that flow from a diverse student body.”
But the court decision made clear that race had to be treated as a “plus” factor rather than as the sole factor and that quotas were illegal:
The Law School’s admissions program bears the hallmarks of a narrowly tailored plan. To be narrowly tailored, a race-conscious admissions program cannot “insulat[e] each category of applicants with certain desired qualifications from competition with all other applicants.” Instead, it may consider race or ethnicity only as a “ ‘plus’ in a particular applicant’s file”; i.e., it must be “flexible enough to consider all pertinent elements of diversity in light of the particular qualifications of each applicant, and to place them on the same footing for consideration, although not necessarily according them the same weight,” It follows that universities cannot establish quotas for members of certain racial or ethnic groups or put them on separate admissions tracks.
The Supreme Court has changed since Justice Sandra Day O’Connor wrote the majority opinion in Grutter, and it’s likely that current members of court will look askance at affirmative action in admissions.
Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. has been particularly skeptical of government programs that take account of race. “Racial balancing is not transformed from ‘patently unconstitutional’ to a compelling state interest simply by relabeling it ‘racial diversity,’ ” he wrote, for instance, in a 2007 decision limiting the use of race to achieve integration in public schools. Justices Alito, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas agreed. Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, the court’s swing justice, was less categorical. But he has never voted to uphold an affirmative action program.
The new case, Fisher v. Texas, No. 11-345, was brought by Abigail Fisher, a white student who said she was denied admission to the University of Texas because of her race. The case has idiosyncrasies that may limit its reach, but it also has the potential to eliminate diversity as a rationale sufficient to justify any use of race in admissions decisions.
Students in the top 10 percent of Texas high schools are automatically admitted to the public university system. Ms. Fisher just missed that cutoff at her high school in Sugar Land, Tex. She sued in 2008, challenging the way the state allocated the remaining spots using a complicated system in which race plays an unquantified but significant role.
Ms. Fisher is soon to graduate from Louisiana State University. Lawyers for the University of Texas said that meant she had no standing to sue, an issue that the justices must now consider.
–From Maureen Downey, for the AJC Get Schooled blog
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
91 comments Add your comment
David Granger
February 22nd, 2012
12:56 am
Can it be that SCOTUS is finally going to rule that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 actually means EXACTLY what it says?
yes i am worried
February 22nd, 2012
5:40 am
Guess what, at most high schools, the majority of top students are white femailes. For the most part, it is clear that white femailes, middle class and better, have a tougher time getting into college these days that white males.
UNC at Chapel Hill has struggled for years to try and balance the class fairly — because admission on stats alone favors women.
This is from an article on the subject:
Another aspect in the reversal of the college gender gap, rather than just its elimination, is the persistence of behavioral and developmental differences between males and females. Boys often mature more slowly than girls. In grades K-12, boys tend to have a higher incidence of behavioral problems (or lower level of non-cognitive skills) than girls. Girls spend more time doing homework than boys. These behavioral factors, after adjusting for family background, test scores, and high school achievement, can explain virtually the entire female advantage in getting into college for the high school graduating class of 1992, the authors figure. It allowed “girls to leapfrog over boys in the race to college.” Similarly, teenage boys, both in the early 1980s and late 1990s, had a higher (self-reported) incidence of arrests and school suspensions than teenage girls.
http://www.nber.org/digest/jan07/w12139.html
yes i am worried
February 22nd, 2012
5:41 am
females not femailes
yes i am worried
February 22nd, 2012
5:45 am
Last year one of the local throwaway papers showed the Valedictorians and salutatorians for multiple schools in their readership area. They listed 32 — only 13 were boys.
http://www.reporternewspapers.net/2011/05/19/valedictorians-salutatorians/
58% women is OK GM
February 22nd, 2012
6:17 am
THere is something we haven’t mentioned in regards to allowing more women into college — therer are simply MORE women in our country than men.
So if Chapel Hill is 58% women, that’s likely an accurate balance b ecause there are simply MORE WOMEN in this country than there are men.
Besides the fact that these women earned thei right to go to college,
GIve men a preference for being a man?
We already do that in our society.
WHy is it that 100% of all US Presidents are men?
US Presidents come from lawyers.
If most lawyes are women, why don’t we have more women Presidents?
If most lawyers are women, why don’t we have more women senators, governors and congressman? All those elected officials are lawyers, Judges too.
So if women are overrepresented in law school why is it that the most coveted roles for lawyers are handed out like candy at Halloween to men?
Discrimination?
Of course.
GM
Mountain Man
February 22nd, 2012
7:38 am
So we solve the issues of past racism by applying reverse racism today.
And about the male/female statistics – how are you women going to feel when colleges start admitting lower qualified men to achieve a “diverse” student body (i.e. balanced along gender lines).
see
February 22nd, 2012
7:44 am
I’ve been advocating for boys in our schools for long time now. In 1992, when the Association of University Women (How Schools Shortchange Girls) was fretting over girls “falling behind” in science and math and DEMANDING that the schools do something to rectify the so-called problem, boys were actually falling behind girls in reading and writing…and girls had just evened the gap between boys in math and science (National Education Longitudinal Study). So, while money was poured into programs to help girls “succeed” in areas where there was no longer any gap, boys educational shortfalls were largely ignored. Now, girls are surpassing boys in middle and high school…and STILL nothing is being done to help boys. It is the educational establishment that is causing boys to fail…there are definite differences between the way boys and girls learn…and one size does NOT fit all. Where is the money to fund the programs to help boys close the gap? Boys are becoming increasingly frustrated in school and are “checking out” in the classroom because of it. I have written my senators, my representatives, etc…no one seems to care.
“Are Boys Falling Behind in Academics” by Jeanne Bleurer and Garry Walz
Inman Park Boy
February 22nd, 2012
8:09 am
“I have a dream, that a man will be judged not by the color of his skin but by the content of his character.” Gee, what a nice sentiment.
V for Vendetta
February 22nd, 2012
8:18 am
see,
That’s actually a really interesting and valid point, something that has been discussed in a number of my graduate school classes. There are a LOT of negative assumptions and circumstances surrounding boys in education (such as the VAST difference in ADHD diagnoses). It is a subject worth considering. Perhaps we’re seeing the long term effects of this beginning to pop up.
gabriel
February 22nd, 2012
8:45 am
a few years ago i was applying for a college, not a very prominent one, but a state college. I had the basic White-Middle Class economic value of my family making from $75k to $100k a year. My friend and I who attended the same highschool together. (he was black or so i dont freak out the extremists here African-American) I had a rough GPA of 2.9, it wasnt my greatest, i slacked off my final year (SENIOR YEAR FTW!! lol). He told me he had a GPA of 2.0 to a 2.2 (I forget, its one of those, its been a while). We both applied to the same state college and we were both accepted. The only difference was that he got a very large scholarship (atleast 85%) when I didnt get a scholarship at all. You may ask, oh well maybe his family didnt make as much. Wrong, his father was a lawyer and his mother a doctor. You may think now, Oh now it seems a bit fishy. They were capable of paying the tuition, but he got the scholarships, when i had to pay out of my a**. Its a weird world we live in, is it not?
Maureen Downey
February 22nd, 2012
8:50 am
@Mountain, According to some admissions counselors, that is already happening. To assure gender balance, schools have to deny spots to female high school seniors with better academic standing and qualifications than their male counterparts.
The conundrum is that if these schools simply admitted the best students, they would have so many girls that after a while neither girls nor boys would want to attend the college. So, this gender balance pressure is more than simply diversity; it’s also economics.
Maureen
Maureen Downey
February 22nd, 2012
8:54 am
@Gabriel, Another factor could have been SAT scores. There are schools that pursue higher SAT scorers, as that is a factor in national rankings. There are so many things that go into college decisions besides GPA that it is hard to know the full story here.
Maureen
Anonmom
February 22nd, 2012
9:17 am
I’ve posted this before — I’ve been tracking articles for over 10 years on how “we are losing our boys” — Newsweek did a big review on it years ago…. One thing, I think, is how school expects kids to just sit still — even in first and second grade — all day and do away with recess — boys need to move. When they act out, because of excess energy, they get into trouble. They then need exercise — to run around — do jumping jacks — a/k/a recess — but they don’t get it — I think, the studies show that many are then diagnosed as ADD/ADHD and medicated to “be docile” and “girl like” so they can sit still and process… some actually do need the meds but we are medicating at about 70% of the kids…. something is really wrong and no one is really piecing the whole picture together. It’s also not just a black/non-black issue. White girls do the best… until you hit college admissions and then, oops, we’ve just got too many of those…. now what. I come back to: gee, what do we, as a society do with all these kids, when they are adults and need to be productive members of society? Much of what we’ve done is “premised” if you will on employers (including the government) being able to care for “citizens” from cradle to grave…. this is not tenable long-term. Corporations (think IBM) are not doing this anymore. What the government has started to do can’t last… population wise it isn’t going to work… baby boomers are the biggest “population” group and they are starting to all hit retirement and the jobs aren’t going to be there and the incentives to do start-ups aren’t there. Also, America is not supposed to be the Soviet Union…. It’s not supposed to be Greece. We are different. So what do we do with the kids when they become adults? See, it all ties together but no one is stepping out of these paradigms. (PS — more women are lawyers but fewer than 15% are partners in big law firms nationally, so the “male” paradigm in various industries is the same).
AlreadySheared
February 22nd, 2012
9:44 am
Yeah, I get it – legacy preferences, gender balance, first in family to attend college, kids who grew up on a farm, etc…
However, extensive and painful experience has led us as a nation to conclude (correctly) that racism is wrong. Race-based admissions are racist (apparently this is less tautological to some than to others).
Good for the Supreme Court, and good riddance to bad rubbish.
Digger
February 22nd, 2012
9:52 am
The best way to be a good little boy in school is to be a good little girl.
AlreadySheared
February 22nd, 2012
9:53 am
@Anonmom
Right on re boys and add/adhd. “They” tried to get us to drug our son years ago, and my answer was no way, no how.
Miraculously, he has grown up to be a high-achieving and well-behaved high school student despite our failure to drug his brain so that he would sit still and act interested.
Gifted and adhd often present themselves identically. I.e., there is little discernable difference between “Hey! Look! A Squirrel!” and “Yeah, I understood that the first time you explained it. The next 4 times you repeated it bored me out of my skull.”
catlady
February 22nd, 2012
10:16 am
My experiences in “affirmative action:” In 1989 I worked in the admissions office of a public university south of here. White applicants with 1200 SAT and high 3. GPAs were routinely turned down, but for a racial minority student, a 900 SAT was routinely accepted and any minority student about to be turned down was examined individually by a special committee to see if there was a way to justify their admission.
At that same college, in 1990, male applicants to teacher ed programs were routinely accepted with a 3.0, but a female applicant with a 3.4 was unlikely to be accepted unless they could demonstrate much experience (such as substitute teaching).
Accepting the most qualified applicant, regardless of race or gender, makes sense IF resources are limited and IF the goal is to produce more graduates. A person with a 900 SAT is less likely, on the whole, to graduate (think ROI) than a person with a 1200. If resources are unlimited, obviously we could take a chance on anyone who shows up with a heartbeat.
Really amazed
February 22nd, 2012
11:25 am
@Gabriel, this sounds like they way they are trying to re-align the new HOPE scholarship. Let the lower gpa and lower sat score appl. minority in for FREE, the higher gpa/sat student that doesn’t fit the minority stat out. HE is on his own. @Catlady, as you said, IF resources are unlimited let ALL in. If resources are limited, as I thought the HOPE scholarship program is now, why would they even consider lowering the income level to parents making less than a certain amount. The best and brightest no matter what the color of skin or income level. The way it should be! This s— has to stop!!! This is reverse discrimination for sure and could start a war, starting with GA.
Prof
February 22nd, 2012
11:57 am
I really don’t want to enter any discussion about the value, or not, of affirmative action laws. But I’d like to note that the original Supreme Court decision in 2003 was based on the benefits that would accrue to the SCHOOL (”the educational benefits that flow from a diverse student body,” as stated above) and not to the members of the races who may have experienced past discrimination.
The Court emphasized the educational value of diversity: it facilitates higher order thinking by making students aware of other perspectives than their own, so they can “think outside the box”; it promotes effective interpersonal and community engagement; and it prepares students to respond effectively to today’s reality of a society that is global in outlook, and a work environment very likely to be multiracial.
Admissions officials have very good reasons for trying to assure good representation of both genders, and all races in their student body; and it has little to do with redressing past injustices. It enables a better education for the students.
bu2
February 22nd, 2012
12:37 pm
@Prof
Do you believe adding a 25th percentile African American son of a doctor from North Gwinnet HS adds more value than adding a 10th percentile Asian or Anglo son of a doctor from the same HS? Or than a 5th percentile Anglo son of a factory worker from La Grange? Should a Hispanic student get an advantage simply because he or she has an Hispanic surname when you might not be able to tell any difference from the Anglo student by looking at them or talking to them?
I agree diversity has value to a school. But ethnicity is only a very small part of diversity. The top 10% law in Texas (automatic admission for the top 10% of any HS class) does far more to promote diversity than any racial preferences.
bu2
February 22nd, 2012
12:46 pm
To put it in terms of current events,
Herman Cain’s and Barack Obama’s kids would get racial preferences over better students simply because of the color of their skin. That makes no sense.
Really amazed
February 22nd, 2012
1:01 pm
@bu welcome to the new America! I am all for diversity only if the diversity has a better gpa and or sat than my new minority child (white male) Not because of the color of ones skin. I will be checking of other on all document too. You bet that this pertains to the illegals too. They will get in before the new minority (white male) with the higher sat/gpa based on needing a certain number of illegals. They just won’t admit it!!!!! Isn’t everyone wondering why the stock market is showing signs of recovery??? It is called milking the books for one to believe the economy is on the road to recovery so people will want to re-elected the very same person that is adding to this mess. The gov’t has powers that no one believes. They don’t want ANYONE coming in and calling them out!! I also believe the congress in power now, had everything to do with getting rid of CAIN. Obama knew he was the biggest threat to him. I know this is another topic, but not really!
AlreadySheared
February 22nd, 2012
1:21 pm
@Really amazed
Don’t go home after work – they’re coming to your house TONIGHT to unperson you.
Maureen Downey
February 22nd, 2012
1:31 pm
@lee, Kenyon is very well respected and has more applicants than spots. Here are some facts about kids who go there: (Nope, I didn’t go there and no one in my family did, but I know it is a highly regarded college.)
Secondary-School Class Rank
Top 1% 14%
Top 5% 38%
Top 10% 60%
Top 20% 84%
Top 30% 95%
Top 40% 98%
Top 50% 98%
Secondary-School GPA
(4.00 scale) Percentage of class
4.0 or higher 39%
3.70-3.99 28%
3.40-3.69 19%
3.00-3.39 14%
2.70-2.99 <1%
2.69 or lower 0%
Back to Top
Secondary-School Course Selection
Percentage of class taking calculus 56%
Average number of science units 4.1
Average number of AP courses 4.8
Soccermom
February 22nd, 2012
3:20 pm
Several years ago when we were having discussions about colleges and majors, my older son came to me and said “Well Mom, I’m screwed!” (pardon the typical teen-speak). When I asked him why, he said “Because I’m a white male. Everyone else gets preference over us in admissions, even people with much lower SAT scores and GPAs.”
Sad but true
bootney farnsworth
February 22nd, 2012
3:26 pm
I detest “diversity”. its a buzzword with no meaning but
used as a club for varying political agendas.
I prefer pursuit of excellence. that has no skin color. it
is determined by personality
bootney farnsworth
February 22nd, 2012
3:29 pm
@ soccermom
the war on the white male continues. its a sad thing, but your son may as well learn it now and deal with it.
and it gets worse with age. trying being a white male 55+ looking for a job these days…
Prof
February 22nd, 2012
4:43 pm
Race/ethnicity is not the only “diversity” considered by college admissions. There’s also socioeconomic class (lower as well as middle and upper class), geographic area (rural as well as urban, out-of-state as well as in-state), age (some older than the usual freshman of 18 years)… Of course, now we’re far afield from affirmative action programs.
But generally, I would say that students learn the most when they’re taken out of their familiar comfort range.
Really Amazed
February 22nd, 2012
5:16 pm
@soccermom, sad but true. My son was told the exact same thing by his high school college counslor! We better be quite because someone on this blog already told me they were coming to unperson me.
Lee
February 22nd, 2012
9:01 pm
@Prof, re “Admissions officials have very good reasons for trying to assure good representation of both genders, and all races in their student body; and it has little to do with redressing past injustices. It enables a better education for the students.”
The suit is not about ensuring colleges get a blended mix of students, or redressing past injustices. It is about public funded colleges discriminating against it’s citizens.
You either agree that discrimination is wrong irregardless of the race of the victim, or you believe that discrimination is acceptable.
It’s really that simple.
Prof
February 22nd, 2012
9:34 pm
@ Lee. My point was that affirmative action policies haven’t been the reason that colleges have considered race and gender when they decide which students to admit. They believe that a diversity of genders, races, socioeconomic classes, and geographic/national origins among their students will make for a better education.
You are assuming that grades are the only factor that should be the basis for college admission, and that considering any other factor (such as race) is discrimination. Either/or fallacy.
Lee
February 22nd, 2012
10:46 pm
But wait Prof, every time I bring up race and IQ, several of you respond by saying “there is no differences between the races”. So, following that train of logic, there should be no reason to consider race in college admissions.
No, the reality is that in every single measure of academic achievement, blacks are always at the bottom of the scale. This is after 60+ years of school integration and 50 years since the Civil Rights Act (which, actually should have been called the Civil Riots Act, but I digress). So, why would any selective college want to dilute the achievement level of it’s student population by accepting the less qualified is still a mystery to me.
Of course, I have yet to understand the politically correct pathology, so it stands to reason I don’t understand why white parents willingly sacrifice their own children on the altar of affirmative action.
bu2
February 22nd, 2012
10:48 pm
@prof
You are assuming that race itself creates diversity. That is a prejudiced attitude. It all depends on the person’s experiences.
Also, is it right to discriminate against Jewish people or Asians because they might produce a disproportionate share of top applicants. There was a long history of discrimination against Jewish people. But now its alright to favor others over them since they are “white.” Does it make sense that one cousin can be considered a preferred Hispanic because his father has a Spanish surname even if there is an Anglo mom, but another cousin can’t because his mom (the sister of the 1st couns’s father) is Hispanic but the father is Anglo?
Prof
February 23rd, 2012
12:14 pm
@Lee. Let’s be precise. When you “bring up race and IQ,” it is always to argue that genetically blacks have lower IQs than whites. You’re doing it again in your Feb. 22, 10:46 pm post. Those of us protesting this conclusion hold that individuals of all races have individual IQs–you can’t generalize as you do, and certainly not from genetics. No-one’s saying, “There’s no difference between the races.” So you’re setting up a “straw man” here to knock down.
@ bu2. The most I would argue is that race/ethnicity very often involves differences in culture that can benefit students’ education generally.
And please remember that Hispanics are an ethnic group, not a race (federal Census definition); so if an individual identifies with Hispanics, they are considered Hispanic. And on college admission forms the person self-identifies.
And it seems anti-Semitic to me to term Jews “white.” For one thing, this is a religion, not a race (in spite of Hitler’s claim). For another, there are Jews who are Hispanic (in South American countries such as Argentina) and black (as in Ethiopia, where there is an ancient group of Ethiopian Jews).
bu2
February 23rd, 2012
12:45 pm
@prof
If you want to get preferences and have a Hispanic surname, you check Hispanic. You have people who are 1/64 Indian getting benefits from being part Native American.
As for Jewish people, the overwhelmingly majority don’t qualify as a “minority,” yet they have been historically discriminated against. That overwhelming majority, now is considered part of the favored group and so they continue to get discriminated against. You are calling it anti-Semetic to justify continued discrimination?
Prof
February 23rd, 2012
1:02 pm
@ bu2. So far as that goes, a person could self-identify as black quite easily if wished. A great many have surnames given to them by their ancestors’ slave-masters who simply used their own European surname. So unless the person has an African surname, there’s no way of telling his/her race from the name. And according to the old “one-drop” rule (but not sure if that’s still legal), a person who is 1/64 black is still black. It all depends on how the person self-identifies.
I’m saying it’s anti-Semitic to claim that Jews belong to a race rather a religion. In your Fab. 22, 10:48 pm post, you referred to them as “white” and also compared them to Asians, who belong to a race.
Pink Elephant
February 23rd, 2012
3:30 pm
What about different admission requirements for athletes? Isn’t that discrimination against otherwise qualified applicants? How many of you would want that prized, Blue Chip, five star recruit to meet the admission standards imposed on the rest of the student body? Why is a lower GPA good enough for a future QB or left tackle to be admitted but a lower GPA isn’t good enough for John/Jane student? Are biases towards students for any reason ever acceptable?
As an instructor at the college level, let me offer this: don’t buy into sterotypes. I’ve met my fair share of students that possess little motivation to excel academically. They come in both genders and all races. I’ve also met students that are very ambitious academically. Guess what? They come in all genders and races.
The Thinker
February 23rd, 2012
9:12 pm
Isn’t a plus for somebody a minus for somebody else in the sense of college admissions?
bu2
February 23rd, 2012
9:59 pm
@prof
As you refuse to acknowledge, the overwhelming # of Jewish people fall into the “white” category and so can be discriminated against in affirmative action cases. And many Jewish people do trace their heritage back (even the Ethiopian Jews claim to) to the Israeli tribes, so many are part of an ethnic group. I didn’t use the term race because it is a meaningless term. You are just using straw man arguments because you are intelligent enough (unlike many posters) to realize when you have a weak case.
Always Skeptical
February 24th, 2012
1:23 am
News flash to everyone….After working years in college admission offices, I’m afraid to tell you that the kids admitted with the worst credentials were always white male legacies. With the gender imbalance, their ranks ( legacies and otherwise) will only increase, yet their delusional story about how one of their friends was denied admission because of affirmative action will still be the story of the day.
Prof
February 24th, 2012
10:19 am
@ bu2. Judaism is a religion, not a race! It is very offensive to state that Jews belong to a race, not a religion. That is what Hitler claimed as justification for killing them. And “race” is certainly not a meaningless term. “Race: a local geographic or global population distinguished as a more or less distinct group by genetically transmitted physical characteristics.”–American Heritage Dictionary, 2nd edition.
Certainly some Jews belong to the white race. (And according to the Federal Census, people whose origins are in the Middle East are considered “white.”) But others who believe in Judaism are Hispanic or black as well. And then there are those who have converted to Judaism. You can’t “convert” to being white, black, or Asian!
Trust me–if you try to tell a Jew that he or she belongs to “the Jewish race,” you’ll have a fight on your hands.