Twenty years later, there are grave doubts about whether colleges have actually honored the Court’s ... [+]
The Supreme Court heard two cases regarding affirmative action on Monday at Harvard University and the University of North Carolina (UNC). At issue is whether their use of racial preferences to admit students is a violation of the promise of equal protection offered by the 14th Amendment and the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
There’s an excellent chance the Court will decide that the use of affirmative action, which it permitted on a basis that’s limited and time-limited in 2003’s Grutter v. Bollinger, has reached its expiration date.
Nineteen years ago, in Grutter, the Court ruled that racial preferences were permissible only if “narrowly tailored” and if institutions took care to give every applicant individualized consideration. Moreover, then-Justice Sandra Day O’Connor wrote for the majority that, “Race-conscious admissions policies must be limited in time.” She said, “[The] Court expects that 25 years from now, the use of racial preferences will no longer be necessary to further the interest approved today.”
Twenty years later, there are grave doubts about whether colleges have actually honored the Court’s insistence that they use racial preferences in a “narrowly tailored” manner and as part of an approach that ensures every applicant is given due consideration.
For instance, at Harvard, just 13% of Asian students in the top academic decile are accepted, compared to 56% of their similarly accomplished black peers. Such numbers can’t help but raise the suspicion that these students are getting something less than a holistic personal assessment.
In Harvard’s case, it turns out that the abysmal acceptance rate for academically accomplished Asian applicants is due to the poor personal ratings they’re consistently assigned by Harvard’s interviewers (based on subjective factors such as whether they are likable or “widely respected”). Concerns about how colleges use race-based preferences are only reinforced by university communications unearthed by the lawsuits.
The UNC case, surfaced online messages in which a college admissions staff wrote things like, “I just opened a brown girl who’s an 810 [SAT],” “I am reading an Am. Ind.,” and “I don’t think I can admit or defer this brown girl.”
It’s time for the Court to decide whether the law of the land means what it says. Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act states: “No person in the United States shall, on the ground of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.”
Harvard and UNC collect huge sums of federal funding each year. Their admissions practices need to comport with federal law.
A Court ruling to that effect, though, would only address one of the ways in which college admissions practices play favorites and stifle opportunity. Those who’ve voiced concerns about affirmative action need to also take on legacy and wealth-based admissions.
After all, defenders of affirmative action have a point when they argue that legacy admissions give special treatment to the already-advantaged. Harvard data, for instance, reveal that the institution admits one-third of legacy applicants. Since the school’s overall acceptance rate was 6% in 2014, family connections boost admissions chances by more than 500%. This amounts to the worst kind of stacked deck, one stacked in favor of the fortunate.
Legacy admissions should be ended — period. College officials complain that such a shift will make it tougher for them to shake down alumni for donations, but it’s not clear why that justifies violating equal opportunity in order to aid the fortunate.
It’s also time for college officials to stop padding college coffers by selling seats to the kids and grandkids of wealthy donors. At Harvard, connections to a big donor boost a student’s chances of admission by a factor of nine. The Harvard lawsuit illuminated some of the unsavory ways in which campus officials shake down potential donors. In one revealing note, a high-ranking campus official observed that one applicant’s family, which had given Harvard $8.7 million over time, had lost its wealth. The official sighed, “I don’t see a significant opportunity for further major gifts,” but added that there was “an art collection which conceivably could come our way.”
Colleges have long sold access to the privileged and connected. A couple years ago, the litigation that followed the FBI’s “Varsity Blues” investigation brought to light the fact that the University of Southern California minutely tracks the giving of affluent applicants’ families. Spreadsheets noted that parents had “given 2 million already” or “previously donated $25k to Heritage Hall.”
If affirmative action is a violation of equal opportunity, then legacy and donation-driven admissions are something far more troubling. It’s time for them to end. Congress should simply amend federal funding language to dictate that colleges that wish to collect federal funds or be eligible for federal lending should be required to erect and maintain a firewall between giving and admissions. States should adopt similar policies for public institutions, conditioning aid on a commitment to merit-based admissions.
Institutions that accept public funds and then are found to violate these laws should be rendered ineligible for funds and subjected to financial penalties. And the individuals responsible for any misdeed should be charged with criminal conduct. In other words, college officials have a choice. They should either be permitted to collect federal aid or admit students based on connections and wealth. But it’s time for American taxpayers to stop subsidizing institutions that sell privilege.
We should demand fairness in who gets admitted to college. Students apply as individuals and deserve to be judged accordingly. That means not favoring students based on race, yes—nor on the basis of connections or family wealth.
