The Supreme Court's recent decision in Students for Fair Admissions v. University of North Carolina signals a significant shift in college admissions. The court deemed the racial preference practices at Harvard and UNC excessive, underscoring that race cannot be the defining factor in evaluating applicants.
Chief Justice John Roberts emphasized in the majority opinion that prioritizing skin color over individual merit, skills, and experiences is constitutionally unacceptable. This ruling, while a victory for individual rights, stops short of completely banning race as a consideration in admissions, leaving room for potential future discrimination.
The 2003 Grutter v. Bollinger decision allowed universities to consider race for diversity purposes, arguing it fosters cross-racial understanding. However, it also prohibited quotas and racial balancing, mandating the use of race-neutral methods when feasible and setting a time limit on racial preferences.
Grutter also instructed courts to presume universities act in good faith, creating a loophole for potential discrimination. The ambiguity surrounding the acceptable level of diversity further complicates the issue.
The blatant discrimination at Harvard and UNC exposed the flaws in Grutter. Asian American applicants with stellar academic records faced lower admission chances than African American applicants with considerably lower academic standing, highlighting a clear bias based on race.
Neither university explored race-neutral alternatives like prioritizing socioeconomically disadvantaged students or eliminating legacy preferences, which could have increased diversity without explicit racial preferences.
Chief Justice Roberts criticized the universities for stereotyping based on skin color, emphasizing the Equal Protection Clause's purpose is to prevent such discrimination. While the Students for Fair Admissions ruling is a positive step toward racial equality, it falls short of a complete solution.
This decision forces universities to be more accountable and transparent in their admissions processes. However, it may also lead to more covert discriminatory practices, such as using zip codes as proxies for race. The upcoming Supreme Court case against Thomas Jefferson High School, dealing with similar proxy discrimination, will further shape the future of equality in education.
