The United States Supreme Court is preparing to consider the case brought by Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA) on the use of race in college admission at the University of North Carolina–Chapel Hill and Harvard College. A great deal has been debated and written about this pending decision, and there is no shortage of individuals, associations, and corporations (from Accenture to Zazzle) willing to share their stance on the matter. In the education world, the National Association for College Admission Counseling (NACAC), the American Council on Education (ACE), a consortium of Catholic colleges, the leaders of the University of California system, and many other institutions filed amicus briefs in support of affirmative action by the August 1 submission deadline.
An amici brief was submitted by a unique collaboration of cosigning organizations all with an “interest in promoting individualized, holistic reviews of applicants that take into account the entirety of each applicant’s background and experience, including race, ethnicity, and all other factors relevant to a thorough analysis of those seeking college admittance.” On behalf of their members and constituents (of which I am one), the leaders of ACCEPT: Admissions Community Cultivating Equity & Peace Today, The Association of College Counselors in Independent Schools (ACCIS), and FairTest: National Center for Fair & Open Testing filed a joint brief in support of the current admission policies of UNC and Harvard (as well as thousands of colleges across the country).
ACCEPT is an “organization that is creating just and equitable paths to post-secondary education, particularly for those who have been historically excluded.” ACCIS is a “membership organization of independent-school-based college counselors who work with a diverse range of students in schools across the country and internationally to guide those students and their caregivers through the college admission process.” FairTest is an “organization that advances quality education and equal opportunity by promoting fair, open, valid and educationally beneficial evaluations of students, teachers, and schools.” All three non-profit groups have been staunch advocates for inclusive educational communities that center learning around equity and access. So it is unsurprising that they found a common purpose in protecting affirmative action and the “compelling interest of diverse viewpoints and experiences” on campuses.
Storytelling
As a school counselor for over two decades, I have worked with students to explore and communicate their unique stories in the college search and application experience. Who are they, what do they love, and where will they be honored? These are among the many questions that must be reflected on as they try to find a good college match. This focus on their individual identity, and their role in a community, serves as the foundation for not only a successful college search but also a meaningful educational experience.
But this is in jeopardy should the Court decide against the interests of these universities. In their brief ACCEPT, ACCIS, and FairTest explain that “SFFA’s position would eliminate the right of individuals to explain their own views and experiences and deny applicants the opportunity to increase their chances of admission by including their full story, history, and body of experience in their applications.”
Instead, the brief argues that colleges should have the freedom to consider the context from which an applicant is coming. It elaborates that this “context may include racial- or ethnic- related challenges overcome by the applicant, such as growing up poor and Black in Mississippi, or a White applicant participating in community efforts to eliminate animus toward Asian-Americans in New York City.”
Racism
The brief outlines the inherent racism in SFFA’s argument. The authors write, “SFFA’s “race-neutral” scheme effectively would trigger unfair and disparate treatment of applicants based on race and ethnicity. SFFA would permit reviewers to consider an applicant’s volunteerism with the Junior League a “plus,” for example, but force them to ignore an applicant’s leadership role in the Urban League. Similarly, reviewers would have to ignore an applicant’s mission work through her African Methodist Episcopal Church, because race is involved. The less an application speaks to diversity, the greater advantage the applicant would have because the reviewer would have nothing to ignore. Rather than a “colorblind” process, SFFA would skew admission decisions to favor experiences and activities more closely related to the White experience.”
Marie Bigham, founder and executive director of ACCEPT, is a former school counselor and admission officer. In a press release announcing the brief she writes, “As a multiracial Asian admissions professional, I cannot stand by when the hard-won battles to increase the representation of students of color–including AAPI students–in colleges are sought to be diminished in an effort to benefit those already privileged in a multitude of other ways.” Bigham also says, “SFFA’s positions are riddled with gross racial stereotypes, patently unworkable ‘solutions’, and mischaracterizations of the admissions process,” adding, “We call upon the Supreme Court to reject this misinformation, which has already been refused by the courts below.”
FairTest executive director, Bob Schaeffer takes issue with "increasing the emphasis on ACT/SAT scores in the admissions process, as advocated by opponents of holistic policies at Harvard and the University of North Carolina.” Schaeffer argues that "test scores do not measure 'merit,'” and placing more weight on standardized tests “will reduce student diversity without improving academic quality.” He adds, “the current practices of those two institutions are fair, valid, and well-justified and that is why three leading university admission reform organizations–ACCEPT, ACCIS, and FairTest–came together to advance this joint brief."
Not Brief But Conclusive
The “brief” is 45 pages (there was an 8,000-word limit) of head nodding for anyone who recognizes the powerful potential of a college education in exposing students, faculty, and community members to a rich, diverse, and transformative experience. Chock full of examples, even an affirmative action skeptic would be challenged to read this amici brief and not question their conviction. Hopefully, the Supreme Court will give this, and the other briefs, their due attention as they make a weighty decision that would unravel over forty years of legal precedent, and impact future generations of scholars and those who serve them.
