An Analysis of the Pros and Cons of Affirmative Action

On June 29, 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a ruling that effectively ends race-conscious admission programs at colleges and universities across the country. The decision reverses decades of precedent upheld over the years by narrow Supreme Court majorities. It ends the ability of colleges and universities — public and private — to consider race as one of many factors in deciding which of the qualified applicants is to be admitted.

Court Ruling

The vote counts were 6-3 against the University of North Carolina (UNC) and 6-2 against Harvard. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson recused herself because of ties to Harvard but wrote a dissent in the North Carolina case. Writing for the Court’s majority, Chief Justice John Roberts, a longtime critic of affirmative action programs, stated that the nation's colleges and universities must use colorblind criteria in admissions.

As he has done before, Justice Clarence Thomas reiterated his long-held view that affirmative action imposes a stigma on minorities. "While I am painfully aware of the social and economic ravages which have befallen my race and all who suffer discrimination, I hold our enduring hope that this country will live up to its principles that ... all men are created equal, are equal citizens, and must be treated equally before the law."

Roberts, for his part, pointed to the court's 2003 decision reaffirming the constitutionality of affirmative action programs, noting that Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, writing for the court at the time, had suggested that there would have to be an end at some future point. That time has now come, Roberts said.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, reveals how Ivy League admissions favored not only Black people and Hispanics but also the children of affluent alumni and donors at the expense of other applicants—especially Asian Americans.

Harvard conducted a statistical analysis of so-called legacy students who are admitted as a child of a donor or faculty who ranked in the top 20% of their high-school class and found they were four to six times as likely to be admitted as other students with similar qualifications. The results show a slightly greater admissions advantage than Black people, nearly twice that of Hispanics and 2.5 times that of low-income students.

Arguments in Support of the Ruling

In addition to Justice Thomas’s opinion above, Justice Roberts wrote for the majority opinion that: "Many universities have for too long... concluded, wrongly, that the touchstone of an individual's identity is not challenges bested, skills built, or lessons learned but the color of their skin," he wrote. "Our constitutional history does not tolerate that choice."

As he has done before, Thomas, the second Black justice appointed to the court, reiterated his long-held view that affirmative action imposes a stigma on minorities. "While I am painfully aware of the social and economic ravages which have befallen my race and all who suffer discrimination, I hold our enduring hope that this country will live up to its principles that ... all men are created equal, are equal citizens, and must be treated equally before the law."

Roberts, for his part, pointed to the court's 2003 decision reaffirming the constitutionality of affirmative action programs, noting that Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, writing for the court at the time, had suggested that there would have to be an end at some future point. That time has now come, Roberts said.

While the court's majority ruled that considering race as an element of the admissions policy is unconstitutional, applicants can still write in essays and supplemental application material about "how race affected [that student's life]," the ruling said — legacy preferences remain.

The result, according to a 2019 National Bureau of Economic Research study, is a significant disparity in admissions. The study found that 43% of white students admitted to Harvard came from those special categories, and almost 70% of all legacy applications to the school were white.

For Black, Latino, and Asian American students, the numbers plummet: Less than 16% of each group were legacies, recruited athletes, or related to Harvard donors or staff.

The study concluded that if preferences for these special groups were removed, the impact would "significantly alter the racial distribution of admitted students."

Arguments Against the Ruling

Those who argued against the ruling point to issues such as equity, diversity, and inclusion (EDI) as a basis for college admission. Others chose to attack legacy admissions. In a Wall Street Journal opinion editorial, Allysia Finley stated that: “But while discrimination on the basis of race is invidious and illegal, family preferences merely offend America’s egalitarian and meritocratic ideals, which Harvard purports to exemplify.” For the nation's colleges and universities, however, diversity will no longer be an acceptable rationale for taking race into account.

According to a 2019 National Bureau of Economic Research study, there is a significant disparity in admissions. The study found that 43% of white students admitted to Harvard came from those special categories, and almost 70% of all legacy applications to the school were white.

For Black, Latino, and Asian American students, the numbers plummet: Less than 16% of each group were legacies, recruited athletes, or related to Harvard donors or staff.

The study concluded that if preferences for these special groups were removed, the impact would "significantly alter the racial distribution of admitted students."

Conclusions

The court did not entirely close the door to racial considerations in college admissions. As Roberts put it, "Nothing in this opinion should be construed as prohibiting universities from considering an applicants’ discussion of how race affected his or her life." Nor did the court address the tactic of clustering minority students in classes.

College admission administrators say schools that have tried to raise the numbers of Black and Latino students without any consideration of race have found that no other criterion — class, or economic status, or programs like a guarantee of admission for students in the top 5% or 10% of their high school class — works as well.

"The research is exceptionally clear," University of Texas professor Stella Flores, whose specialty is higher education and public policy, told NPR in an interview last fall. "There's no other alternative method that will racially diversify a student body, other than the use of race as one factor of consideration."

Posted by Dr. Steven Mintz, aka Ethics Sage, on July 13, 2023. You can learn more about Steve’s activities by checking out his website at: https://www.stevenmintzethics.com/. Follow him on Facebook at: https://www.facebook.com/StevenMintzEthics and on Twitter at: https://twitter.com/ethicssage.