Midway through the year, two significant upheavals in higher education occurred as the conservative-majority Supreme Court ruled against student loan relief and affirmative action in the college application process.
Midway through the year, two significant upheavals in higher education occurred as the conservative-majority Supreme Court ruled against student loan relief and affirmative action in the college application process.
Harvard has been grappling with an alarming rise in antisemitism on campus, leading to an investigation by the Department of Education into possible discrimination.
Admissions leaders fear that underrepresented students may wrongly conclude that the court decision has eliminated their opportunities, deterring them from applying. They worry that universities may become intimidated and abandon efforts to recruit and retain diverse students, fearing legal ramifications even if their programs are lawful.
Gerardo Ochoa, Linfield’s Vice President of Enrollment Management and Student Success, suggested the Supreme Court decision will not significantly alter their practices. He stressed that the institution would continue to comply with the ruling while maintaining its focus on diversity and community representation.
The minority groups on July 3, filed a complaint with the U.S. Department of Education alleging that 70 percent of legacy admissions, which disproportionately benefit white applicants, violate a provision of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 banning racial discrimination in programs receiving federal funds.
Secretary Cardona emphasized the longstanding inequities faced by students of color in education and college access. He stated that the decision dealt another blow to the fight for equal opportunity in the United States.
Fanta Aw, Ph.D., chief executive officer and executive director of NAFSA: Association of International Educators, called the SC decision a “watershed moment” that calls into question the value of having a diverse student body and “the myriad of ways universities go about in achieving that goal.”
Harvard has been grappling with an alarming rise in antisemitism on campus, leading to an investigation by the Department of Education into possible discrimination.
Admissions leaders fear that underrepresented students may wrongly conclude that the court decision has eliminated their opportunities, deterring them from applying. They worry that universities may become intimidated and abandon efforts to recruit and retain diverse students, fearing legal ramifications even if their programs are lawful.
Gerardo Ochoa, Linfield’s Vice President of Enrollment Management and Student Success, suggested the Supreme Court decision will not significantly alter their practices. He stressed that the institution would continue to comply with the ruling while maintaining its focus on diversity and community representation.
The minority groups on July 3, filed a complaint with the U.S. Department of Education alleging that 70 percent of legacy admissions, which disproportionately benefit white applicants, violate a provision of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 banning racial discrimination in programs receiving federal funds.
Secretary Cardona emphasized the longstanding inequities faced by students of color in education and college access.
He stated that the decision dealt another blow to the fight for equal opportunity in the United States.
Fanta Aw, Ph.D., chief executive officer and executive director of NAFSA: Association of International Educators, called the SC decision a “watershed moment” that calls into question the value of having a diverse student body and “the myriad of ways universities go about in achieving that goal.”
