LI Colleges React To Supreme Court Ruling On Affirmative Action

NEW YORK — The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday ended race-conscious affirmative action policies similar to those used for decades by some New York colleges and universities to increase diversity on their campuses.

In a 6-3 decision, the court held that race-conscious admissions programs at Harvard and the University of North Carolina violate the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment, effectively eliminating the ability of colleges and universities to use affirmative action to achieve a racially diverse student body.

The majority opinion by Chief Justice John Roberts said the court has "permitted race-based admissions only within the confines of narrow restrictions. University programs must comply with strict scrutiny, they may never use race as a stereotype or negative, and — at some point — they must end.”

The two separate but similar cases before the court — Students for Fair Admissions v. University of North Carolina and Students for Fair Admissions v. President and Fellows of Harvard College — were brought by a conservative activist group that argues the Constitution forbids the use of race-conscious admissions policies.

The plaintiffs asked the justices to strike down the landmark 1978 ruling in Regents of the University of California v. Bakke that upheld schools’ use of race-conscious admissions policies, and Grutter v. Bollinger, a 2003 case affirming it. Writing for the majority in that case, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor said the University of Michigan Law School’s use of a race-conscious admissions program did not unduly harm nonminority candidates.

Specifically, the plaintiffs argue Harvard’s policy violates Title VI of the Civil Rights Act prohibiting institutions that receive federal funding from discriminating based on race. Because of the policies, they argued, Asian American students were less likely to be admitted to Harvard than similarly qualified white, Black or Hispanic applicants.

The group argued the University of North Carolina violated the 14th Amendment’s equal protections clause, which bars racial discrimination by government entities, by considering race when it’s not necessary to do so to achieve a racially diverse student body.

In the North Carolina case, lawyer Patrick Strawbridge told the justices “racial classifications are wrong,” as established in Brown v. Board of Education, saying the Supreme Court’s 1954 landmark ruling striking down racial segregation in public schools.

Students for Fair Admissions, the group that brought the lawsuits against Harvard and the University of North Carolina, is headed by Edward Blum, a conservative legal strategist who has spent years fighting affirmative action.

In a statement after the court agreed to hear the case, Blum said both Harvard and the University of North Carolina “have racially gerrymandered their freshman classes in order to achieve prescribed racial quotas.”

“Every college applicant should be judged as a unique individual, not as some representative of a racial or ethnic group,” he said at the time.

On Long Island, Drew Biondo, spokesperson for Suffolk County Community College, told Patch that the decision "doesn't affect us. We're an open access institution. It's not like someone applied and we're looking at two people with similar credentials and then choosing one over another. It was never an issue to begin with. We're always looking toward diversity, but in our marketing and everything else, as far as who comes to the college — it really does not affect us."

In addition, he said, Suffolk County Community College has been named one of the nation’s “Top 10 2-Year Schools by Region 2019 to 2020” and is the top SUNY institution for Hispanic students in rankings released by Hispanic Outlook on Education Magazine.

Stony Brook University Officials issued a statement: "Stony Brook University, together with the leadership of the SUNY system, is carefully reviewing today’s Supreme Court ruling. Stony Brook actively recruits a diverse student population; undergraduate admission is based on a holistic review that includes optional test scores, GPA, curriculum, essays, recommendations and the prospective student’s major of interest. Stony Brook has explicitly recognized that a diverse and inclusive campus community is vital for meaningful educational experiences, as well as student growth and success in an increasingly diverse and global workforce. This core value is reflected in our mission statement, as well as in our exemplary #1 national ranking in social mobility."

CUNY Chancellor Matos Rodríguez also spoke on the U.S. Supreme Court ruling: "Today’s ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court will make it more difficult for historically marginalized racial and ethnic groups to access higher education and stands to hamper the progress the country has made toward building a more equitable and just society," he said. "CUNY has a 175-year history of educating New Yorkers, regardless of their family lineage or financial status. A varied and inclusive student body helps create an educational climate that is especially enriching; all students benefit and are better prepared to succeed in a global society when they interact with peers who have a wider range of perspectives and experiences. Reducing the diversity of our country’s great universities would have a detrimental impact on the open exchange of ideas that has helped American campuses become catalysts of creativity and powerful engines of progress."

And, he said: "As misguided as we believe it to be, this ruling will not deter us in our work. In fact, it strengthens our commitment to preserve and expand access and opportunity to all New Yorkers, and to continue helping students from historically marginalized racial and ethnic groups attain upward mobility through the many advantages of a high-quality public education."

New York University's NYU News spoke to Steinhardt professors Mike Hoa Nguyen and Lisa Stulberg.

Stulberg said he had two primary concerns. "The first is that colleges and universities are going to go farther than they need to go, legally, to respond to a Supreme Court decision. . . Secondly, I am quite worried about how a ruling to overturn race-conscious admissions will impact the representation of Black and Latinx students, especially, at selective colleges."

Blum also bankrolled a 2016 Supreme Court case Fisher v. University of Texas, in which a white student said she had been denied admission to the school because of her race. The court narrowly upheld race-conscious admissions policy in that case, but warned that not all affirmative action policies would pass constitutional muster.

Many predominantly white colleges and universities developed affirmative action plans in the 1960s and 1970s as they struggled to attract people from historically disadvantaged and underrepresented communities. Polices were also created to promote greater inclusion of women.

Since the late 1970s, the Supreme Court has three times upheld affirmative action on the grounds that institutions have a compelling interest to address past discrimination that shut nonwhite students out of higher learning. Justices have also agreed with arguments that more diverse student bodies promoted cross-racial understanding.

Race is among a confluence of admissions standards, including grades, test scores and extracurricular activities, but institutions say it can be a deciding factor when considering large numbers of equally qualified students for a limited number of spots.

About a quarter of schools said in a 2019 National Association of College Admission Counseling survey said race had a “considerable” or “moderate” influence on admissions, while nearly 60 percent said race had no influence at all.

Nine states — Arizona, California, Florida, Idaho, Michigan, Nebraska, New Hampshire, Oklahoma and Washington — have banned race-based admissions policies at public colleges and universities.

Affirmative action hasn’t cured inequities in education, Sarah Hinger senior staff attorney in the Racial Justice Program at the American Civil Liberties Union, recently told EducationWeek, “but it has been an important tool in an effort to at least partially recognize the substantial inequities that exist and that people are positioned with when applying to colleges, and on college campuses.”

The Associated Press contributed reporting.