The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) just dealt another death blow to discrimination and prejudicial practices in higher education. The highlighted case, Students for Fair Admissions Inc v. President and Fellows of Harvard College had its day in front of the high court.
As charged in the original complaint affidavit, the plaintiffs accused Harvard University and the University of North Carolina (UNC) with discrimination against “non-preferred groups.” In 2018, the New York Times wrote, “though these Asian-American applicants scored higher than other groups on test scores and traditional application materials, they were consistently rated lower on traits like likability, courage and being widely respected.”
For years, many colleges and universities adopted admissions policies that are subjective and tend to favor groups or individuals, based on a prejudicial process that picks winners and losers according to the admission panels “preferred ethnicity.”
These universities created artificial character ratings and used them to consistently push Asian-American and Pacific Islanders scores beneath other ethnic groups overall scores, thus hindering their admissions into many of America’s learning institutions.
According to the court’s ruling, Harvard admissions processes purposely discriminated against Asian-American and Pacific Islander applicants; and in doing so, has violated the civil liberties granted to all American citizens under the constitution. While Harvard routinely denies these claims, the scoring sheets used to evaluate Asian applicants tell a different story.
The court further ruled that universities utilizing affirmative action programs do not comply with the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution and stated, “race may never be used as a negative and that it may not operate as a stereotype, because the practice resulted in fewer Asian American applicants being accepted into Harvard.”
Evidence shows that students of “preferred ethnicities” were favored based on an arbitrary and insular process created by the universities. Harvard called the case “politically motivated” and believes that “colleges and universities should have the freedom and flexibility to create their own version of a diverse campus.” Paradoxically, the very definition of institutionalized discrimination.
U.S. Secretary of Education Miguel Cardona stated, “I believe students should have an opportunity to apply and get into colleges based on their own merit.”
Most Americans agree with the education secretary that discrimination of any kind is repugnant; especially in taxpayer funded learning institutions. Continuing to allow school’s admissions teams to carve out their version of equality, created a structurally bigoted foundation in our nation’s higher education institutions. The court’s ruling is a victory for civil liberties and equal protections under the law.
Martin Luther King Jr stated, “I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.” MLK’s message has been quoted countless times since it was first spoken and provides a prayerful insight on constitutional equality.
No matter what your viewpoint on higher education admission practices, any policy born from a bigoted principle will always manifest into far-reaching discriminatory practices in perpetuity. ◆
Thank you & God bless you,
Vincent Cavaleri
