Photo credit: Duke Chronicle
The organization that won its affirmative action lawsuit against Harvard last year is now working to enforce the new rules at schools across the country. Students for Fair Admissions, or SFFA, has given indications that it will investigate universities for compliance and file lawsuits where violations are found.
In the midst of the college application period, the SFFA seems to be closely watching to see if there is any discrimination by universities. Their focus and attention to admission policies of prestigious universities such as Yale and Duke show that prestigious universities are their main target due to increased publicity.
What Is Affirmative Action?
Affirmative action denotes the policies employed by U.S. universities in an effort to enhance diversity by the use of race as one of many factors in the admission process. It attempts at making the playing field equal for underrepresented groups of students, notably Black, Hispanic, and Native American, through adding extra weight into the highly competitive process of admission.
Critics countered that the practice unduly penalized other racial groups, in particular Asian Americans, who frequently excelled in academic achievement but who were allegedly being passed over for others. The Supreme Court held last year that admissions based on race run afoul of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, thus curtailing affirmative action in higher education.
SFFA Takes Action
SFFA is focusing, for the moment, on three elite universities: Princeton, Yale, and Duke. All three have demonstrated a marked drop in their admissions of Asian American students this year, compared with last. The group says that is counter to expectations, above all in the wake of a Supreme Court decision banning race-based admissions.
On Tuesday, SFFA sent formal letters to these universities questioning whether they are truly complying with the court's ruling. The letters, signed by Edward Blum, president of SFFA, aver that the racial composition of this year's incoming students seems suspiciously imbalanced if the admission process is genuinely race-neutral. He warned the universities to keep all the related documents for possible legal scrutiny.
“Based on S.F.F.A. 's extensive experience, your racial numbers are not possible under true neutrality,” Blum’s letter stated. “You are now on notice. Preserve all potentially relevant documents and communications.”
Photo credit: Columbia University - The Center for Gender and Sexuality Law
The Balancing Act Between Compliance and Diversity
It shows that the fight about race-conscious admissions is still not done with. Recently, a Supreme Court ruling has left universities scrambling to find other ways to keep diversity in their student bodies intact in accordance with the new rules. Since historically, universities have conventionally been very secretive about their admission processes, these letters may even lead them to be more secretive.
William Jacobson, a Cornell law professor, mentioned that the focus will now likely shift from policies to what happens inside admissions offices. “I think the fight is now going to move away from policies to what is happening in admissions offices,” Jacobson said.
OiYan Poon, an expert in college admissions and author of a book on the Asian American role in this debate, criticized Blum’s actions. She noted that admissions numbers fluctuate year to year, and it's too early to draw conclusions based on just one cycle. “It’s disappointing to see the same old intimidation tactics that Blum is using here to scare universities away from doing what they can to ensure that high-quality, talented students are given a shot,” said Dr. Poon.
Impact on Asian American Students
Complicating the data is the fact that more students this year chose not to identify their race or ethnicity on their applications. At Princeton, for example, the number of "unknowns" jumped from 1.8 percent to 7.7 percent. At Duke it rose from 5 percent to 11 percent. This in turn makes it more difficult for schools to get a full picture of their applicant pool.
Asian American enrollment also significantly declined this year: from 35 percent to 29 percent at Duke; from 30 percent to 24 percent at Yale; and from 26 percent to 23.8 percent at Princeton. Meanwhile, Black enrollment increased or remained steady at those universities.
In the case the court decided last year, Harvard and other universities, for instance, Yale, Princeton, and Duke, argued that taking race into consideration as one of many factors was the best way to ensure diversity. Jennifer Morrill, a spokeswoman for Princeton, said the university is in full compliance with the Supreme Court's ruling. Yale and Duke did not immediately comment.
But in its decision, the Supreme Court said it considers the practice of giving preference to students based on their race as one that violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.
Universities have to proceed gingerly now, balancing the ruling with their still stated desire for different races. It also prohibited the taking into consideration of race by admissions officers, except in cases when the candidate's race appeared in a personal essay that would have described how their life was affected by it.
This issue is very near and dear to the hearts of Korean and Asian readers.
The affirmative action debate has placed many Asian American students at the center, and any change to elite U.S. university admissions policies could alter the representation of Asian students. Education being highly valued within both Korean and Asian communities, any shift in the landscape of Admissions is followed with hawk-eyed interest-the outcome of this legal battle might affect how universities approach issues of diversity and admissions both in the U.S. and in Asia.
저작권자 ⓒ 국제학교뉴스, 무단 전재 및 재배포 금지