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.”
The United States Supreme Court on Thursday declared race-conscious admissions at Harvard University and the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill to be unconstitutional.
In its decision, the Court ruled that both universities violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.
Chief Justice John Roberts, in a majority opinion, argued that both Harvard and UNC’s affirmative action programs “unavoidably employ race in a negative manner, involve racial stereotyping, and lack meaningful endpoints.”
“We have never permitted admissions programs to work in that way, and we will not do so today,” he stated.
Race as a factor in admissions
Roberts emphasized the imperative of eradicating racial discrimination, stating that eliminating it requires addressing all instances of it.
He also pointed out that both Harvard and UNC asserted that an individual’s race is never regarded as a negative factor in their admissions programs, but such claims do not hold up under scrutiny.
Roberts highlighted Harvard’s analogy, where they equate race with other factors considered in the admission process. He noted that Harvard stated, for instance, that while a preference may be given to applicants likely to excel in the Harvard-Radcliffe Orchestra, it is not considered a “negative” not to excel in a musical instrument.
He further remarked that Harvard’s logic extends to other preferences, such as high grades and test scores. However, he questioned the seriousness of this understanding, noting that college admissions operate on a zero-sum basis.
He said granting benefits to certain applicants while withholding them from others inherently favors the former group at the expense of the latter.
Meanwhile, the chief justice acknowledged that there are no prohibitions on universities from considering an applicant’s personal account of how race has influenced their life. However, he specified that such discussions must be specifically linked to a quality of character or unique ability that the applicant can contribute to the university.
Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito Jr., Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett supported the decision. Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote the dissenting opinion, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, who did not participate in the Harvard case.
‘Watershed moment’
In a statement, Harvard said it is committed to complying with the decision while also emphasizing the importance of diversity and inclusion in academic excellence.
The university added that in the coming weeks and months, they will rely on the talent and expertise of the Harvard community to devise a plan that upholds their essential values in accordance with the Court’s new precedent.
Meanwhile, UNC Chancellor Kevin Guskiewicz expressed the university’s unwavering dedication to fostering a diverse student body composed of individuals with varied perspectives and life experiences.
While the Supreme Court’s decision did not align with their desired outcome, Guskiewicz also assured that the university would thoroughly examine the ruling and take any required measures to ensure compliance with the law.
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.”
“Coming from American University in Washington as its VP for Undergraduate Enrollment, Campus Life and Inclusive Excellence before coming to NAFSA, I think you can imagine the significance of this breaking news today [for me]: the value and importance of creating an inclusive, accessible and equitable environment,” Aw told MSM Reporter.
She added, “This may be in some ways a setback, but I’m also cautiously optimistic that as universities as higher education in partnership with many that we would want to look at innovative ways to ensure that we don’t go backward but in fact move forward and open doors of opportunities for students of all backgrounds, of all means, of all racial-ethnic identities.”
The NAFSA chief said that while structural inequities exist, society maintains an “obligation, education imperative, moral imperative, and even economic imperative to ensure that the door of opportunities is open to all.”
Aw foresees significant implications of the decision over the coming months and years, yet she “deeply believes” in universities’ larger mission to educate future generations of leaders in all sectors who “represent what this United States looks like and that in many ways represent the world we live in.”
