LI Colleges React to Supreme Court Decision on Affirmative Action

NEW YORK — The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday ended race-conscious affirmative action policies similar to those used for decades by some New York colleges and universities to increase diversity on their campuses.

In a 6-3 decision, the court ruled that admissions programs at Harvard and the University of North Carolina violated the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment, effectively eliminating the ability of colleges and universities to use affirmative action to achieve a racially diverse student body. body.

Chief Justice John Roberts's majority opinion said the court “permits race-based admissions only within narrow limits. University programs must comply with strict scrutiny, can never use race as a stereotype or negative, and — some moment — they must end.”

The two separate but similar cases before the court — Students for Fair Admissions v. University of North Carolina and Students for Fair Admissions v. President and Fellows of Harvard College — filed by a conservative activist group that argues the Constitution prohibits the use of race-conscious admissions policies.

The plaintiffs asked the justices to overturn the landmark 1978 decision in Regents of the University of California v. Bakke who advocated the use of race-conscious admissions policies and Grutter v. Bollinger, a 2003 case that confirmed this. Writing for the majority in that case, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor said the University of Michigan Law School's use of an admissions program did not unduly disadvantage non-minority applicants.

Specifically, the plaintiffs argue that Harvard's policy violates Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, which prohibits institutions that receive federal funding from discriminating on the basis of race. Because of the policies, they argued, Asian American students were less likely to be admitted to Harvard than similarly qualified white, black, or Hispanic applicants.

The group argued that the University of North Carolina violated the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment, which prohibits racial discrimination by governmental entities, by considering race when it is not necessary to do so to achieve a racially diverse student body.

In the North Carolina case, attorney Patrick Strawbridge told the justices that “racial classifications are wrong,” as found in Brown v. Board of Education, saying the Supreme Court's landmark 1954 decision struck down racial segregation in public schools.

Students for Fair Admissions, the group that brought the lawsuits against Harvard and the University of North Carolina, is led by Edward Bloom, a conservative legal strategist who has spent years fighting for affirmative action.

In a statement after the court agreed to hear the case, Blum said both Harvard and the University of North Carolina have “racially interpreted freshman classes in order to meet prescribed racial quotas.”

“Each college applicant should be judged as a unique individual, not as a representative of a racial or ethnic group,” he said at the time.

On Long Island, Suffolk County Community College spokesman Drew Biondo told Patch that the decision “doesn't affect us. We're an open access institution. It's not like someone has applied and we're looking at two people with similar credentials and then choosing one versus the other. It was never an issue to begin with. We always look at diversity, but in marketing and everything else, in terms of who comes to college — it really doesn't affect us.”

In addition, he said, Suffolk County Community College has been named one of the top 10 2-year schools by region for 2019 to 2020 and is the top SUNY institution for Hispanic students in rankings published by Hispanic Outlook on Education Journal.

Stony Brook University officials issued a statement: “Stony Brook University, along with SUNY system leadership, is carefully reviewing today's Supreme Court decision. Stony Brook actively recruits a diverse student population. Undergraduate admission is based on a holistic review that includes optional test scores, GPA, curriculum, essays, recommendations, and the prospective student's field of interest Stony Brook has expressly recognized that a diverse and inclusive campus community is vital to meaningful educational experiences, as well as development and student success in an increasingly diverse and global workforce. This core value is reflected in our mission statement, as well as our exemplary #1 national ranking in social mobility.”

CUNY Chancellor Matos Rodriguez also spoke about the U.S. Supreme Court decision: “Today's U.S. Supreme Court decision will make it more difficult for historically marginalized racial and ethnic groups to access higher education and hinder the progress that the country has marked towards building a fairer and just society,” he said. “CUNY has a 175-year history of educating New Yorkers, regardless of family background or economic status. A diverse and inclusive student body helps create an educational climate that is highly enriching. All students benefit and are better prepared to succeed in a global Diminishing the diversity of our nation's great universities would have a negative impact on the open exchange of ideas that has helped make American campuses catalysts of creativity and powerful engines of progress.”

And he said, “As wrong as we think it is, this decision will not deter us from our work. In fact, it strengthens our commitment to maintain and expand access and opportunity for all New Yorkers and to continue to help students from historically marginalized racial and ethnic groups achieve upward mobility through the many benefits of a high-quality public education.”

NYU News spoke with Steinhardt Professors Mike Hoa Nguyen and Lisa Stulberg.

Stulberg said he had two main concerns. “The first is that colleges and universities will go further than is necessary, legally, to respond to a Supreme Court decision. representation of Black and Latino students, especially, at selective colleges.”

Blum also funded a 2016 Supreme Court case Fisher v. University of Texas, in which a white student said she was denied admission to the school because of her race. The court narrowly upheld race-conscious admissions policy in that case, but cautioned that not all affirmative action policies will pass constitutional muster.

Many predominantly white colleges and universities developed affirmative action plans in the 1960s and 1970s as they sought to attract people from historically disadvantaged and underrepresented communities. Policies were also created to promote greater inclusion of women.

Since the late 1970s, the Supreme Court has three times upheld affirmative action on the grounds that institutions have a compelling interest in addressing past discrimination that excludes nonwhite students from higher education. The justices also agreed with arguments that more diverse student bodies promoted racial understanding.

Race is factored into admissions standards, including grades, test scores and extracurricular activities, but institutions say it can be a deciding factor when considering large numbers of equally qualified students for a limited number of spots.

About a quarter of schools said in a 2019 survey by the National Association of College Admissions Counseling that race had a “significant” or “moderate” influence on admissions, while nearly 60 percent said race had no influence at all.

Nine states — Arizona, California, Florida, Idaho, Michigan, Nebraska, New Hampshire, Oklahoma and Washington — have banned race-based admissions policies at public colleges and universities.

Affirmative action hasn't cured educational disparities, Sarah Hinger, senior staff attorney at the American Civil Liberties Union's Racial Justice Program, recently told EducationWeek, “but it's been an important tool in an effort to at least partially acknowledge significant disparities. that exist and with which people are placed when applying to colleges and on campuses.”

The Associated Press contributed to this post.