From: allin
The Supreme Court recently ruled on two cases concerning the use of race as an admissions criterion in college admissions [02:06:08]. This topic has been contentious in California for over 25 years [02:04:03].
The historical context includes:
- The Bakke case: In 1974, a man named Bakke was rejected by the University of California Davis Medical School and alleged reverse discrimination, leading to a landmark U.S. Supreme Court case, Regents of the University of California versus Bakke [02:33:51].
- UC Regents’ Vote: In 1995, the UC Regents voted to eliminate affirmative action [02:45:10].
- 2003 Supreme Court Ruling: In 2003, the Supreme Court indicated that affirmative action would be allowed for approximately another 25 years, expecting the necessary work to be done by then [02:23:44].
The Recent Ruling
The Supreme Court delivered a 6-3 vote against affirmative action in the University of North Carolina case and a 6-2 vote against it in the Harvard case [02:15:39]. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson recused herself from the Harvard case due to her previous service on Harvard’s Board of Overseers [02:24:24]. Conservative judges voted to strike down affirmative action, while liberal judges voted to keep it [02:30:30].
The cases were filed in 2014 by “Students for Fair Admissions” [02:40:40]. The Court found that schools like Harvard and UNC systematically discriminated against Asian Americans by using race as a profiling system, violating civil rights laws [02:47:49].
An analysis of Harvard’s admit rates by race and academic decile revealed a significant disparity: an African-American student in the 40th percentile of the academic index was more likely to be admitted than an Asian student in the 100th percentile [02:54:19]. This means an Asian American student with scores better than 99% of other applicants still faced disadvantages [02:10:04].
Implications and Future Changes
Impact on University Admissions
The decision necessitates changes to university applications and admissions profiling, including whether race can even be declared on forms [02:58:00].
The first-order derivative of this ruling is expected to impact athletics-based and legacy-based admissions [02:30:30]. If race-based admissions are prohibited, it would be difficult to justify other non-meritocratic admissions criteria [02:31:00].
- Athletics-based admissions: Students with poor grades but exceptional athletic ability are admitted [02:37:35].
- Legacy-based admissions: Students are admitted primarily because their parents are alumni or wealthy donors [02:52:51].
Many believe that institutions should be transparent about “rate cards” for admissions based on donations, openly stating the cost to admit a child of a rich donor [03:37:25]. For example, it could be stated as “80 million to get into Harvard” [03:40:00]. This transparency would expose the hypocrisy of the system [03:09:07].
A 2019 National Bureau of Economic Research study found that 43% of white students admitted to Harvard were athletes, legacy students, children of faculty/staff, or had a relative who were donors [03:26:27]. Furthermore, 75% of these white students would have been rejected if treated as normal applicants [03:53:07]. This highlights a significant injustice [03:16:16].
If universities are forced to be meritocratic, they must apply that standard across the board [03:20:00]. However, this only applies to institutions receiving federal funding, as purely private organizations could set their own admissions criteria [03:06:00].
Impact on Private Companies
The ruling affects any institution receiving federal funding [02:00:00]. The second-order derivative involves potential lawsuits and implications for private companies [02:27:00]. Many companies like Apple, Facebook, or Exxon have race-based programs to attract diverse talent (e.g., African-American engineers, Hispanic chemists) [02:51:01]. These programs may now be challenged and deemed illegal, impacting DEI initiatives and ESG criteria [02:51:01].
Ethical and Philosophical Debates
Equality of Opportunity vs. Equality of Outcome
The decision highlights the tension between equality of opportunity and equality of outcome [03:40:00]. While the objective is for everyone to have equal rights to success, the question is at what point the focus shifts from providing equal opportunity to ensuring equal outcomes, which some view as resembling socialism [03:50:00]. College admissions represent a complex intersection of outcome (of K-12 education) and opportunity (for future success) [03:52:00]. The challenge is akin to the abortion argument, where both sides hold strong, seemingly contradictory, value-oriented viewpoints [03:09:07].
Meritocracy and Societal Progress
The debate brings up the ideal of meritocracy [03:25:00]. While most agree that achievement should be based on merit in fields like sports or compensation, the context of college admissions is complex [03:31:00]. The history of the U.S., built on slavery, means society wants to see all individuals, especially black Americans, achieve [03:32:00].
Addressing Root Causes
Many believe that the focus on affirmative action at the university level is too late in the educational pipeline [03:38:00]. The real solution lies in addressing economic disparities and foundational issues earlier in life:
- Investing in early childhood education: Child care, nursery schools, Pre-K, and elementary school education [03:42:00].
- Introducing competition in schools: This could involve breaking teachers’ unions and implementing school choice programs, like vouchers, to give parents more options for their children’s education [03:52:00].
- Addressing institutional racism: The abysmal quality of public schools, due to lack of competition and union influence, is seen as a primary factor trapping people in poverty across generations [04:16:00].
Beyond Academics in Admissions
The question of whether pure academics should be the sole criterion for college admissions is also raised [04:37:00]. A blend of criteria, including creativity or artistic talent, could be considered [04:45:00]. Maintaining optionality for institutions to define their own recruitment and training goals, rather than a government-standardized model, could lead to a better diversity of workforce [04:54:00].
University Endowments
The profit motive of universities’ endowments is seen as a barrier to changes like rejecting federal funding to set their own admissions policies [04:33:00]. For example, Harvard’s endowment of $53 billion makes it difficult to forgo federal funding and potentially risk investment returns [05:05:00]. Endowments prioritize generating high returns through investments like private equity and hedge funds, which would be impacted if they solely focused on funding operational expenses without external revenue streams [05:12:00].