Do you think affirmative action is necessary, or is it discriminatory or harmful?
The Supreme Court heard oral arguments on two cases that could reshape college admissions — and how we think about diversity. Do you think affirmative action is necessary, or is it discriminatory or harmful?
Activists speaking in support of affirmative action outside the Supreme Court after the justices heard arguments on Monday.
Harvard is accused of discriminating against Asian American students by using a subjective standard to gauge traits like likability, courage and kindness, and effectively creating a ceiling for those students in admissions. In the other case, plaintiffs said the University of North Carolina had discriminated against white and Asian applicants by giving preference to Black, Hispanic and Native American ones. The Court’s ruling, expected in June, could reshape college admissions for the nation and the future of affirmative action.
Are you planning to go to college? What criteria do you think colleges should use to admit applicants, and why? Should colleges and universities consider race or ethnicity when making decisions about student admissions? Is promoting diversity on college campuses, and in society more broadly, a good thing?
In “Supreme Court Seems Ready to Throw Out Race-Based College Admissions,” Adam Liptak writes:
The Supreme Court on Monday appeared ready to rule that the race-conscious admissions programs at Harvard and the University of North Carolina were unlawful, based on questioning over five hours of vigorous and sometimes testy arguments, a move that would overrule decades of precedents.
Such a decision would jeopardize affirmative action at colleges and universities around the nation, particularly elite institutions, decreasing the representation of Black and Latino students and bolstering the number of white and Asian ones. Questioning from members of the court’s six-justice conservative majority was sharp and skeptical. “I’ve heard the word diversity quite a few times, and I don’t have a clue what it means,” Justice Clarence Thomas said. “It seems to mean everything for everyone.”
Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. asked a similar question about the term “underrepresented minority.”
“What does that mean?” he asked, adding that college admissions are “a zero-sum game” in which granting advantages to one group necessarily disadvantages another.
If the court does away with affirmative action by the end of its current term, it would represent the second time in the space of a year that its conservative supermajority has jettisoned decades of precedent to overturn a policy that has helped define American life. But as its decision in June eliminating the constitutional right to abortion made plain, members of that majority have not hesitated to take bold steps on divisive issues.
Mr. Liptak summarizes some of the big themes during the oral arguments: In general, two themes ran through questions from the court’s conservatives: that educational diversity can be achieved without directly taking account of race and that there must come a time when colleges and universities stop making such distinctions.
The court’s three liberal members put up a spirited defense.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor said “race does correlate to some experiences and not others.”
“If you’re Black,” she said, “you’re more likely to be in an underresourced school. You’re more likely to be taught by teachers who are not as qualified as others. You’re more likely to be viewed as having less academic potential.” Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson said it would be odd if admissions officers could consider factors like whether applicants were parents, veterans or disabled — but not if they were members of racial minorities. That has “the potential of causing more of an equal protection problem than it’s actually solving,” she said.
Justice Elena Kagan said she was worried about “a precipitous decline in minority admissions” if the court were to rule against affirmative action in higher education. “These are the pipelines to leadership in our society,” she said of elite universities. Over the course of the argument, the justices discussed with seeming approval several kinds of race-neutral approaches: preferences based on socioeconomic status; so-called top 10 programs, which admit students who graduate near the top of their high school classes; and the elimination of preferences for children of alumni and major donors, who tend to be white. Justice Amy Coney Barrett asked whether it would be permissible for minority students to write essays describing their experiences with race discrimination. Patrick Strawbridge, a lawyer for Students for Fair Admissions, the group challenging the programs, said that was fine.
“What we object to,” he said, “is a consideration of race and race by itself.” Personal essays are different, he said. “It tells you something about the character and the experience of the applicant other than their skin color,” he said. To learn more about the history of affirmative action, including how the policy has taken on an altered form over the years and why it has become so contentious, read this Debatable newsletter.
Students, read the entire article and then tell us: Do we still need affirmative action in higher education? Should colleges and universities consider race or ethnicity when making decisions about student admissions? Or is race-conscious affirmative action always discriminatory or harmful? What do you see as the benefits and dangers of affirmative action in higher education?
How important an issue is affirmative action for you? Do you ever discuss the topic with friends or family members? What is your reaction to the Harvard and North Carolina cases now before the Supreme Court? How did the article affect your thinking about this complex and fraught issue? Which arguments for or against affirmative action from the article do you find most persuasive? Do you agree with Justice Sotomayor? She suggested that affirmative action was needed because “If you’re Black, you’re more likely to be in an underresourced school. You’re more likely to be taught by teachers who are not as qualified as others. You’re more likely to be viewed as having less academic potential.” Or are you more swayed by conservative justices who suggested through their questioning that “educational diversity can be achieved without directly taking account of race and that there must come a time when colleges and universities stop making such distinctions”? Elizabeth B. Prelogar, the U.S. solicitor general, argued in support of the universities in both cases and said before the court: “When students of all races and backgrounds come to college and live together and learn together, they become better colleagues, better citizens and better leaders.” Do you agree? In what ways has diversity in your school or community, or lack of it, been a benefit or a drawback? For many observing the hearings, the question of diversity itself seems to be on trial with the two cases before the court: How important is diversity — racial, economic, ideological, geographic and religious — to a multiracial democracy? The Court explored several “race-neutral alternatives,” such as preferences based on socioeconomic status or the use of so-called top 10 programs, which admit students who graduate near the top of their high school classes. (You can read more about them here.) What is your reaction to these ideas? What alternatives would you recommend if affirmative action is eliminated? How can we make the college admissions process more effective, fair or equitable? If you were the head of college admissions at a college or university, what criteria would you use for judging applicants? How do you think the Supreme Court will rule? What impact do you think these rulings will have on the future of affirmative action?
Activists speaking in support of affirmative action outside the Supreme Court after the justices heard arguments on Monday.
Harvard is accused of discriminating against Asian American students by using a subjective standard to gauge traits like likability, courage and kindness, and effectively creating a ceiling for those students in admissions. In the other case, plaintiffs said the University of North Carolina had discriminated against white and Asian applicants by giving preference to Black, Hispanic and Native American ones. The Court’s ruling, expected in June, could reshape college admissions for the nation and the future of affirmative action.
Are you planning to go to college? What criteria do you think colleges should use to admit applicants, and why? Should colleges and universities consider race or ethnicity when making decisions about student admissions? Is promoting diversity on college campuses, and in society more broadly, a good thing?
In “Supreme Court Seems Ready to Throw Out Race-Based College Admissions,” Adam Liptak writes:
The Supreme Court on Monday appeared ready to rule that the race-conscious admissions programs at Harvard and the University of North Carolina were unlawful, based on questioning over five hours of vigorous and sometimes testy arguments, a move that would overrule decades of precedents.
Such a decision would jeopardize affirmative action at colleges and universities around the nation, particularly elite institutions, decreasing the representation of Black and Latino students and bolstering the number of white and Asian ones. Questioning from members of the court’s six-justice conservative majority was sharp and skeptical. “I’ve heard the word diversity quite a few times, and I don’t have a clue what it means,” Justice Clarence Thomas said. “It seems to mean everything for everyone.”
Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. asked a similar question about the term “underrepresented minority.”
“What does that mean?” he asked, adding that college admissions are “a zero-sum game” in which granting advantages to one group necessarily disadvantages another.
If the court does away with affirmative action by the end of its current term, it would represent the second time in the space of a year that its conservative supermajority has jettisoned decades of precedent to overturn a policy that has helped define American life. But as its decision in June eliminating the constitutional right to abortion made plain, members of that majority have not hesitated to take bold steps on divisive issues.
Mr. Liptak summarizes some of the big themes during the oral arguments: In general, two themes ran through questions from the court’s conservatives: that educational diversity can be achieved without directly taking account of race and that there must come a time when colleges and universities stop making such distinctions.
The court’s three liberal members put up a spirited defense.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor said “race does correlate to some experiences and not others.”
“If you’re Black,” she said, “you’re more likely to be in an underresourced school. You’re more likely to be taught by teachers who are not as qualified as others. You’re more likely to be viewed as having less academic potential.” Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson said it would be odd if admissions officers could consider factors like whether applicants were parents, veterans or disabled — but not if they were members of racial minorities. That has “the potential of causing more of an equal protection problem than it’s actually solving,” she said.
Justice Elena Kagan said she was worried about “a precipitous decline in minority admissions” if the court were to rule against affirmative action in higher education. “These are the pipelines to leadership in our society,” she said of elite universities. Over the course of the argument, the justices discussed with seeming approval several kinds of race-neutral approaches: preferences based on socioeconomic status; so-called top 10 programs, which admit students who graduate near the top of their high school classes; and the elimination of preferences for children of alumni and major donors, who tend to be white. Justice Amy Coney Barrett asked whether it would be permissible for minority students to write essays describing their experiences with race discrimination. Patrick Strawbridge, a lawyer for Students for Fair Admissions, the group challenging the programs, said that was fine.
“What we object to,” he said, “is a consideration of race and race by itself.” Personal essays are different, he said. “It tells you something about the character and the experience of the applicant other than their skin color,” he said. To learn more about the history of affirmative action, including how the policy has taken on an altered form over the years and why it has become so contentious, read this Debatable newsletter.
Students, read the entire article and then tell us: Do we still need affirmative action in higher education? Should colleges and universities consider race or ethnicity when making decisions about student admissions? Or is race-conscious affirmative action always discriminatory or harmful? What do you see as the benefits and dangers of affirmative action in higher education?
How important an issue is affirmative action for you? Do you ever discuss the topic with friends or family members? What is your reaction to the Harvard and North Carolina cases now before the Supreme Court? How did the article affect your thinking about this complex and fraught issue? Which arguments for or against affirmative action from the article do you find most persuasive? Do you agree with Justice Sotomayor? She suggested that affirmative action was needed because “If you’re Black, you’re more likely to be in an underresourced school. You’re more likely to be taught by teachers who are not as qualified as others. You’re more likely to be viewed as having less academic potential.” Or are you more swayed by conservative justices who suggested through their questioning that “educational diversity can be achieved without directly taking account of race and that there must come a time when colleges and universities stop making such distinctions”? Elizabeth B. Prelogar, the U.S. solicitor general, argued in support of the universities in both cases and said before the court: “When students of all races and backgrounds come to college and live together and learn together, they become better colleagues, better citizens and better leaders.” Do you agree? In what ways has diversity in your school or community, or lack of it, been a benefit or a drawback? For many observing the hearings, the question of diversity itself seems to be on trial with the two cases before the court: How important is diversity — racial, economic, ideological, geographic and religious — to a multiracial democracy? The Court explored several “race-neutral alternatives,” such as preferences based on socioeconomic status or the use of so-called top 10 programs, which admit students who graduate near the top of their high school classes. (You can read more about them here.) What is your reaction to these ideas? What alternatives would you recommend if affirmative action is eliminated? How can we make the college admissions process more effective, fair or equitable? If you were the head of college admissions at a college or university, what criteria would you use for judging applicants? How do you think the Supreme Court will rule? What impact do you think these rulings will have on the future of affirmative action?
