The court’s homework assignment for colleges on race
The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision today to end race as a factor in college admissions will now launch a vigorous and perhaps difficult search in higher education for legal and creative ways to deservedly educate more students from underrepresented racial groups. Yet it would be helpful to start that search by considering what the court ruling does not do.
It does not dispute as “commendable goals” the desire by Harvard University and the University of North Carolina – the two institutions at the center of the case – to cultivate, through diversity, a higher class of “engaged and productive citizens and leaders.” It also acknowledged the importance of “appreciation, respect, and empathy, cross-racial understanding, and breaking down stereotypes.”
Rather, the court has determined that doing so on the basis of any form of racial discrimination, regardless of the desired social effect, violates the constitutional guarantee of “equal protection under the law” in the 14th Amendment. As Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the majority decision, “the Court has permitted race-based college admissions only within the confines of narrow restrictions: such admissions programs must comply with strict scrutiny, may never use race as a stereotype or negative, and must – at some point – end.” In reaching that decision, the majority sought to compel universities to find other means to work toward a more just and equal society.
Today’s decision comes at a time when concerns about social justice are prompting deeper discussions about diversity, equality, and reparations for past racial harm in offices, school boards, and legislatures across the country. Removing race as a factor in the composition of college classes, Chief Justice Roberts wrote, in no way prevents a consideration of race as a formative factor in individual experience.
“Nothing prohibits universities from considering an applicant’s discussion of how race affected the applicant’s life, so long as that discussion is concretely tied to a quality of character or unique ability that the particular applicant can contribute to the university,” Chief Justice Roberts wrote. “Many universities have for too long wrongly concluded that the touchstone of an individual’s identity is not challenges bested, skills built, or lessons learned, but the color of their skin. This Nation’s constitutional history does not tolerate that choice.”
In her dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor acknowledged that Harvard and UNC have “reckoned with their past and its lingering effects.” She added, “Acknowledging the reality that race has always mattered and continues to matter, these universities have established institutional goals of diversity and inclusion.” Her main argument finds no objection from the majority: “Equality requires acknowledgment of inequality.”
The nation’s ongoing debate over race was reflected in today’s sharp and divided ruling. Yet it also places the burden of finding solutions back on both universities and citizens. The “commendable goals” of integrated campuses are not dismissed. Schools just need new and different means to achieve them.
