What Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard Means for College Admissions

By Ketaki Gujar
Ketaki Gujar is a junior at the University of Pennsylvania studying Political Science in the College of Arts and Sciences.
​
This October, the highly-publicized Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard case went to trial, with Harvard University accused of discriminating against Asian-American applicants. During the trial, the plaintiff held that Asian-Americans unfairly receive lower scores on character assessments, curtailing their admission rates despite impressive academic and extracurricular accomplishments. [1] For its part, Harvard denied these accusations, claiming the way it evaluates applicants is nuanced and formulated to bring a range of diverse perspectives to campus. [2] The judge is expected to declare a verdict in the spring, though according to experts, the case may make its way to the Supreme Court. [3]

Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard is but the latest in a series of cases that question if race is a valid criterion in higher education admissions. Linked to this question are affirmative action policies, which provide opportunities for historically underrepresented groups that may still face barriers to entry in education spaces. There are limits to affirmative action: in 1978, the Supreme Court ruled in Regents of the University of California v. Bakke that colleges could not utilize racial quotas in admissions, determining that such quotas violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. [4]
​
From this ruling, the holistic admissions process employed by Harvard and other universities emerged, stemming from the idea that objective metrics cannot fully judge a student’s potential to succeed. Now colleges consider applicants’ background, extracurricular activities, recommendation letters, and yes, race when making decisions. [5] Essentially, any affirmative action policies are nestled under a university’s holistic admissions practices.
Still, affirmative action and holistic admissions are not without their critics. Citing “reverse discrimination,” some argue we should eliminate race as a factor of admission entirely. [6] Others feel affirmative action policies actually hurt minority students. Take the mismatch hypothesis. According to Justice Clarence Thomas, this is when “unprepared students...find that they cannot succeed in the cauldron of competition”. [7] In order words, students admitted to schools through affirmative action policies may struggle to keep up with peers, which is certainly a controversial claim. Still others take issue with holistic admissions not on the basis of race but in the way the process allows for the following discrepancy: recruited athletes, legacy students, and children of donors make up 5% of applicants but 30% of admitted students at Harvard. [8]

Nevertheless, the Supreme Court has largely upheld affirmative action, holistic admissions, and in general race as an admissions consideration. But Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard is unique, as is the context in which the case is unfolding. Previous cases involved white plaintiffs and public universities, while Students for Fair Admissions represents a minority group and is questioning the practices - and really, the autonomy - of a private institution. The Justice Department recently launched an investigation into accusations that Yale University discriminates against Asian-American applicants: a hint that the current administration wants to reconfigure the role of race in higher education admissions. [9] Finally, with the addition of ideologically-conservative Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court, the future of race-conscious admissions is more uncertain than it has been in years.

Ultimately, the cultural dialogue that prompted Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard highlights valid concerns. The percentage of Asians in the U.S., for example, has more than doubled in the past several decades, but the percentage of admitted Asian students in Harvard’s freshman class remains within a narrow range. [10] Furthermore, Asian-Americans do not generally fall within the categories of recruited athletes, legacy students, and children of donors, the high-priority students with admissions advantages discussed earlier. [11] To me, these issues warrant discussions on how to increase transparency of college admissions, on how to mitigate implicit or unconscious biases, and on how to reckon with diversity in the context of high-priority students.

But Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard should not eliminate race as a criterion for admissions, as Edward Blum, founder of Students for Fair Admissions, admitted he desires. [12] Without race-conscious admissions, we allow a decrease in transparency of admissions, invite further bias, and sidestep the concerns of high-priority admissions. Without race-conscious admissions, Harvard cannot promise the unique experience only diversity of background and thought can provide. Without race-conscious admissions, the students who are in fact admitted to Harvard will be, quite simply, robbed.

References:
[1] Fernandes, Deirdre. “What next for Harvard's Affirmative Action Case? It's Complicated.” BostonGlobe.com. November 24, 2018. Accessed November 26, 2018. https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2018/11/24/what-next-for-harvard-affirmative-action-case-complicated/LLt2yAxbXJDEqKJQ5dkx9O/story.html.
[2] Ibid.
[3] Ibid.
[4] “Affirmative Action Fast Facts.” CNN. October 23, 2018. Accessed November 26, 2018. https://www.cnn.com/2013/11/12/us/affirmative-action-fast-facts/index.html.
[5] Harberson, Sara. “The Truth about 'holistic' College Admissions.” Los Angeles Times. June 09, 2015. Accessed November 26, 2018. https://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-harberson-asian-american-admission-rates-20150609-story.html.
[6] “Affirmative Action Fast Facts.” CNN. October 23, 2018. Accessed November 26, 2018. https://www.cnn.com/2013/11/12/us/affirmative-action-fast-facts/index.html.  
[7] Chingos, Matthew M. “Are Minority Students Harmed by Affirmative Action?” Brookings. July 28, 2016. Accessed November 26, 2018. https://www.brookings.edu/research/are-minority-students-harmed-by-affirmative-action/.
[8] Hartocollis, Anemona. "The Harvard Trial: A Double-Edged Sword for College Admissions." The New York Times. November 03, 2018. Accessed November 26, 2018. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/02/us/harvard-trial-college-admissions.html.
[9] Fernandes, Deirdre. “What next for Harvard's Affirmative Action Case? It's Complicated.” BostonGlobe.com. November 24, 2018. Accessed November 26, 2018. https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2018/11/24/what-next-for-harvard-affirmative-action-case-complicated/LLt2yAxbXJDEqKJQ5dkx9O/story.html.
[10] Emba, Christine. “The Harvard Admissions Plaintiffs Are Being Used.” The Washington Post. October 18, 2018. Accessed November 26, 2018. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-harvard-admissions-plaintiffs-are-being-used/2018/10/18/c8d943fa-d30c-11e8-b2d2-f397227b43f0_story.html?utm_term=.b569afd97beb.
[11] Harberson, Sara. “The Truth about 'holistic' College Admissions.” Los Angeles Times. June 09, 2015. Accessed November 26, 2018. https://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-harberson-asian-american-admission-rates-20150609-story.html.
[12] Emba, Christine. “The Harvard Admissions Plaintiffs Are Being Used.” The Washington Post. October 18, 2018. Accessed November 26, 2018. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-harvard-admissions-plaintiffs-are-being-used/2018/10/18/c8d943fa-d30c-11e8-b2d2-f397227b43f0_story.html?utm_term=.b569afd97beb.
Photo Credit: Wikimedia Commons: Joseph Williams https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Harvard_University_Widener_Library.jpg
The opinions and views expressed through this publication are the opinions of the designated authors and do not reflect the opinions or views of the Penn Undergraduate Law Journal, our staff, or our clients.