The Supreme Court Seems Open To Ending The Use Of Race In College Admissions

Comment Conservative justices on Monday appeared open to ending decades of Supreme Court precedent allowing racially based college and university admissions decisions, repeatedly expressing doubt that institutions would ever grant an “end point” to using race to create diverse student bodies. After nearly five hours of argument, affirmative action programs at Harvard and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill appeared to be in serious jeopardy. The question is how broad such a ruling might be and what it would mean for other elite colleges and top state universities that say basing it on grades and test scores alone could lead to dramatic declines in Black and Hispanic students. Overturning court precedent that race can be one of many factors in admissions decisions would have “profound consequences” for “the nation we are and the nation we aspire to be,” Attorney General Elizabeth B told the justices. .Prelogar. “The negative consequences would reverberate through almost every major institution in America,” he said, referring to the military, medical and scientific communities and corporate America. Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justice Samuel Alito challenged attorney Seth Waxman on Oct. 31 about Harvard’s admissions policies. (Video: The Washington Post) But the court’s conservatives revisited decades of Supreme Court rulings that tolerated limited use of racial classifications and seemed unsatisfied with claims by lawyers representing schools that the end was near for the use of race-conscious policies. In repeated questioning, these lawyers admitted that they could not give a definite answer to the question: “When will it end?” Read live updates from Monday’s oral arguments in UNC, Harvard cases Patrick Strobridge, who represents Students for Fair Admissions, said allowing the use of race in higher education was an outlier among the court’s rulings that should be thrown out. “Whatever factors the government uses to decide which juries to empanel, who you can marry, or which elementary schools our children can attend, skin color is not one of them,” he said. It was the most polarizing hearing of the term so far, and the lengthy debate represented an extraordinary investment of time for the court where arguments typically span an hour. The courtroom was packed for the UNC case, which was heard first, and at least three of the judges’ wives — Jane Roberts, Virginia “Ginny” Thomas and Patrick Jackson — were in attendance. The court has narrowly upheld affirmative action in the past. But the court’s newfound conservative supermajority showed last term that it’s not afraid to upend precedent with a reversal Roe v. Wade. Justice Clarence Thomas, the court’s longest-serving member and a regular critic of race-conscious policies, made clear early on his rejection of the goal of racial diversity in student bodies, something earlier courts found compelling. “I’ve heard the word diversity several times and I have no idea what it means,” Thomas told North Carolina Attorney General Ryan G. Park. When Park tried to explain the educational benefits of diversity, Thomas, who is the second black justice to sit on the court, responded that he “didn’t put much stock into it because I’ve heard similar arguments for segregation. “ Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., who often tries to play a moderating role among conservatives seeking to move legislation quickly, indicated that the use of race might be an exception. Roberts has previously written the court’s conservative opinions in cases limiting the Voting Rights Act and the use of race in public school student assignments. In a heated exchange with Harvard’s lawyer, he worried about a system in which a student would have a better chance of admission “based solely on” skin color. After repeated questions, attorney Seth Waxman conceded that being African-American or Hispanic — or in some cases Asian-American — can tip the scales in favor of admissions for highly qualified applicants. “Well, we’re talking about race as a determinant of admission to Harvard,” Roberts said, his voice rising. It might be the deciding factor, Waxman replied, “as being an oboe player in a year when the Harvard Radcliffe Orchestra needs an oboe player will be the tip.” Roberts quickly responded, “We didn’t have a civil war over oboe players. We fought a civil war to eliminate racial discrimination,” he said. “And that is why it is a matter of great concern. I think it’s important for you to determine whether or not giving credit based solely on skin color is based on a stereotype when you say it brings diversity of opinion. It may bring no difference of opinion at all in a particular case.’ Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. and others saw college admissions as a zero-sum game: any advantage given to one student automatically meant a disadvantage to another. If it’s a “100-yard walk, let’s say it starts five yards closer to the finish line,” Alito told attorney David Hinojosa, who represents students defending UNC’s policies. But Justice Sonia Sotomayor fought the analogy. He said university administrators consider whether a minority student comes from a disadvantaged school, faced and overcame discrimination or came from a family without significant resources. “What schools are doing is looking at all the factors to try to put students at the beginning as equals,” he said. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, the court’s first black female justice, said she was concerned that if a “university can consider and value all the other backgrounds and personal characteristics of other applicants, but cannot value race” it has the ” may cause more of an equal protection problem than it actually solves.” He offered the case of a student who could write an essay about why it was important to be the fifth generation in his family to attend UNC, and compared it to a black student who might want to offer a different reason for attending: “the family “They have been in this area for generations, since before the Civil War, but they were slaves and never had the opportunity to attend this venerable institution.” (Jackson recused herself from the Harvard case because she was a board member at her alma mater and one of her daughters is currently in college.) Students on why they are for and against affirmative action Several conservative justices repeatedly returned to the question of when — if ever — race would no longer be necessary in college admissions. The justices noted the majority opinion Grutter v. Bollinger since 2003, where Justice Sandra Day O’Connor’s opinion stated that racial preferences were not likely to be needed in 25 years. “What if it’s still going to be difficult in another 25 years” to create a diverse student body, Judge Amy Coney Barrett asked Park. “So what do you say when you’re here in 2040? Are you still defending it as just being vague? It will continue;” In response, Park said that Larger The opinion calls for “aggressive and enthusiastic adoption of race-neutral alternatives,” which university officials say have so far been insufficient to achieve diversity on campus. “It’s a dial, not a switch. And the progress we’ve made since then Larger has shown that at the University of North Carolina, we have called it significantly. Roberts was not convinced. “I don’t see how you can say the program will ever end,” he said. At times, the judges seemed to be talking more among themselves than questioning the lawyers. Justice Elena Kagan likely had her colleague, Brett M. Cavanaugh, in mind when she asked Cameron T. Norris, the lawyer representing challengers to Harvard’s policy, whether a justice who wants a diverse group of employees can have in race in mind when making hiring decisions. Cavanaugh prides himself on such hires, and his staffers say only three of the 20 he has hired to the Supreme Court are white men. “The question is, when the race-neutral means can’t get you there, they don’t get you there, when you’ve tried and tried and they still don’t get you there, can you go with a consciousness of struggle?” asked. “I don’t think so, Justice Kagan,” Norris replied As the justices addressed general issues in the UNC case, much of the Harvard case dealt more specifically with allegations of discrimination against Asian Americans. Alito cited admissions data that challengers claimed show Asian Americans are unfairly penalized when Harvard scores them on personal traits such as integrity, courage, kindness and empathy. “Asian student applicants receive the lowest personal scores of any group,” Alito said. “What is this due to?” Waxman tried to play down any “slight numerical difference” the data showed and said so-called personal ratings were not an important part of the process. “It doesn’t make a statistical difference,” Waxman said. “If it’s okay, why are you doing it?” countered Alito. Waxman, Prelogar and Ryan all reminded the court that district judges had conducted extensive trials in both cases and found no discrimination. But at the end of the tough questioning, Prelogar and Waxman urged the court to simply send the cases back for more consideration rather than overturning a precedent. Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor argued on Oct. 31 that Reconstruction-era inclusion policies are related to current racial disparities in education. (Video: The Washington Post) The justices also debated whether the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause means the Constitution must be colorblind. Doubters say that under the same…