Proponents for affirmative action in higher education rally in front of the US Supreme Court on October 31, 2022, in Washington, DC.
Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images
SCOTUS outlawed race-based college admissions, effectively striking down affirmative action.
Their opinion said that colleges consider legacy status, athlete, financial aid eligibility, and race.
But while affirmative action was gutted, other preferences and special factors remain.
SCOTUS’ 6-3 decision to rule race-based decisions in the college application process as unconstitutional effectively ended affirmative action, a decades-long practice of promoting diversity in university student bodies.
But their decision was surprisingly silent on other determining factors in the application process, such as legacy status, donor relationships, recruitment for athletics, employee relationships, and other special recommendations — allowing colleges to continue give those students preferential treatment.
On Thursday, SCOTUS’ majority decision — helmed by Chief Justice John Roberts — slammed Harvard University and the University of North Carolina for including racial identity in their admissions decisions, noting that both programs “lack sufficiently focused and measurable objectives warranting the use of race, unavoidably employ race in a negative manner, involve racial stereotyping,” and “lack meaningful end points” in their processes.
But the court didn’t address other ways schools such as Harvard and UNC may give preference to one candidate over another. Recruited athletes, legacy students, children of faculty and staff, children of honors, and other special recommendations remain lawful.
In SCOTUS’ decision, the majority opinion noted that Harvard’s last stage of deciding to admit or reject students includes a process called the “lop,” in which only four pieces of information are considered if the applicant is on the chopping block: legacy status, recruited athlete status, financial aid eligibility, and race.” SCOTUS noted that UNC has a similar process.
While the court’s majority ruled that considering race in this fashion is unconstitutional — though applicants can still write in essays and supplemental application material about “how race affected [that student’s life],” the ruling said — these other preferences remain.
The result, according to a 2019 National Bureau of Economic Research study, is a significant disparity in admissions. The study found that 43% of white students admitted to Harvard came from those special categories, and almost 70% of all legacy applications to the school were white.
For Black, Latino, and Asian American students, the numbers plummet: Less than 16% of each group were legacies, recruited athletes, or related to Harvard donors or staff.
The study concluded that if preferences for these special groups were removed, the impact would “significantly alter the racial distribution of admitted students.”
Following the Supreme Court’s decision, several lawmakers and former leaders voiced their displeasure with the ruling and how it maintained legacy admissions.
“If SCOTUS was serious about their ludicrous “colorblindness” claims,” Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez tweeted, “they would have abolished legacy admissions, aka affirmative action for the privileged.”
“Time to get rid of legacy admission then,” Rep. Andy Kim wrote.
A group of New York state legislators, however, are already on top of that. They introduced a bill this legislative session that bans the practice of legacy admissions in New York colleges and universities, declaring them “discriminatory and inequitable.”