SCOTUS decision and affirmative action in California’s higher education

What are the impacts of the Supreme Court’s recent landmark decision on a 6-3 vote, Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College and Students for Fair Admissions v. University of North Carolina in the nation’s most populous state? In sum, the impacts deny the reality of race under the guise of a skin color-blind Constitution, according to some critics, one that ends considerations of students’ race in admissions to institutions of higher education.

Audrey Dow is senior vice president with the Campaign for College Opportunity. “As a country we have not overcome the overt racism and segregation that has kept our education system separate and unequal,” she told Capitol Weekly. “We need more and more people to get college degrees for our knowledge economy, given that the majority of California students are people of color.”

Against that demographic backdrop, California’s Proposition 209, passed in 1996, ended the consideration of students’ race as one factor in public higher education admissions, but did not apply to private colleges and universities. The Supreme Court’s recent landmark decision ended that distinction, which Dow describes as a step backward for racial equity in higher education.

What to do now? For starters, Dow cites supportive statements for race-conscious admissions from the Claremont Colleges, Loyola Marymount and the University of Southern California.

USC President Carol Folt posted such a statement to Instagram soon after the Supreme Court decision. According to her, “each of our students, faculty and staff has earned a place here and contributes to creating one of the most stimulating and creative educational communities in the world.” adding the ruling “will not impact our commitment to creating a campus that is welcoming, diverse, and inclusive to talented individuals from every background.”

Her words were echoed by Kristen F. Soares, president of the Association of Independent California Colleges and Universities.

“We are extremely disappointed with the Supreme Court’s decision to ban affirmative action and race-conscious admissions,” Soares said, “but have been preparing for it.”

California’s Proposition 209, passed in 1996, ended the consideration of students’ race as one factor in public higher education admissions, but did not apply to private colleges and universities. The Supreme Court’s recent landmark decision ended that distinction.

To this end, the 81 private independent universities in the Golden State have practical options to pursue diversity, equity and inclusion. One is to increase admissions staffing, according to Soares. In this way, the education institutions can pushback against the Supreme Court decision to restrict affirmative action. With expanded and improved outreach, private colleges and universities can also investigate policies that could negatively affect minority students from enrolling and attending, according to Dow.

Speaking of race-conscious policies to increase the numbers of minority state residents pursuing higher education, Dow cited the University of California moving to a more holistic review of students’ backgrounds. For example, the number of Advanced Placement courses available at high schools of a prospective student matters. “What kind of high school did a student attend?” she asks. “What is the average socio-economic status of students?” This holistic approach looks beyond students’ extracurricular activities and grades.

On the other side of the tracks, we know that the socio-economic status of schools in zip codes with higher property values advantages them. It is no secret that schools and students with access to financial resources improves educational outcomes.

In addition, Dow gave a nod to the UC for removing the ACT and SAT test scores as criteria for admissions, tests she says are racially biased against black and Latinx students. Such tests do not predict whether students will attend and graduate from colleges and universities. In her view, this UC policy serves as a model for private higher education institutions to emulate in the Golden State and across the U.S. On that note, California has been one of the most progressive states in helping low-income students to attend college, Dow says. She cites the record of accomplishment for Cal Grants as a need to hike their future funding.

Dow also believes that now is the time to end legacy admissions, whereby students from well-heeled households enroll in higher education institutions despite their academic records. This move can increase space for qualified minority students.

As a recent complaint filed with the federal Dept. of Education against Harvard’s legacy admissions reads, such practices “disproportionately advantage white applicants, (and) they systematically disadvantage students of color, including Black, Latinx, and Asian Americans. As the Supreme Court has recently stated: “A benefit provided to some applicants but not to others necessarily advantages the former group at the expense of the latter.”

Sally Chen is the education equity policy manager for the Chinese for Affirmative Action, an advocacy group. She is one of the eight nonwhite students and alumni who testified in the recent Supreme Court decision that race-conscious admissions are helpful. “It seems that all we hear about is division,” Chen says. “When colleges create opportunities, we see that students across every race benefit. Affirmative action is a key tool to advance equity, foster diversity and repair injustice. Asian Americans are in solidarity with other communities of color to advocate for educational equity.”

In spite of all this, a recent ANC News/Ipsos poll shows that most people in the U.S. agree with the Supreme Court decision to restrict the use of race in higher education admissions. Political battle lines in and out of California appear to be an outcome. One thing is clear; there will be no appeals of the high court’s ruling any time soon. It is on recess until the first Monday in October.