U.S. higher education officials, including those trying to diversify the scientific workforce, have spent the past year pondering how to respond if the U.S. Supreme Court bans the use of race as a factor in undergraduate admissions.
Such a ruling, in related cases involving Harvard University and the University of North Carolina (UNC), could come as early as next week. And although the court is expected to overturn a status quo that has existed for 45 years, several diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) scholars say the impact of its decision will depend on how radically the justices redefine what institutions can and cannot do to improve campus diversity.
“We’re all on pins and needles,” says Kimberly Griffin, dean of the College of Education at the University of Maryland, whose work on equity includes boosting completion rates for Black graduate students in science and engineering. “Will the court’s ruling go beyond race-conscious undergraduate admissions and also address graduate students, financial aid, faculty hiring, and any program with identity-conscious elements?”
Another wildcard is how the Supreme Court’s ruling might reinforce or conflict with the growing number of state laws aimed at restricting diversity programs, many of which address the significant underrepresentation of Black, Latino, and Native American people in science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) fields. Griffin and others say the scope of the ruling could have a significant impact on the nation’s ability to remain a global leader in innovation.
To better understand what’s at stake, here are seven things to know about the two high court cases, known to legal scholars as Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College and SFFA v. University of North Carolina, et al.
What exactly is before the court?
In 2014, an advocacy group, Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. (SFFA), sued Harvard and UNC. It claimed that Harvard was violating Title VI of the Civil Rights Act by using race-based criteria to discriminate against Asian American applicants. (Although a private institution, Harvard receives federal funding and is covered by the 1965 law.) SFFA said UNC, a public institution, was violating the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution—which prohibits racial discrimination by government entities—by using of race as a factor in admissions. The Supreme Court took the cases after two federal appellate courts ruled against the group. The justices heard oral arguments last fall.
Which groups lobbied the justices?
The court received 93 amicus briefs, with a majority defending the universities’ policies. (The U.S. solicitor general did likewise in her oral arguments.) Several scientific and higher education organizations also cited an extensive body of research demonstrating the value of student body diversity. Those backing SFFA include a group of 82 Republican members of Congress and 19 state attorneys general.
Can race currently factor into admissions?
Yes, based on a 1978 case involving medical school admissions at the University of California, Davis. The high court upheld its stance in a 2003 decision involving the University of Michigan law school and a 2016 decision involving the University of Texas (UT), agreeing that promoting diversity in higher education was a compelling state interest.
Will the impact of the ruling be felt equally across the country?
Probably not. The political complexion of each state will likely play a big role in how any new legal guidelines play out, predicts Stella Flores, who studies education and public policy at UT Austin.
“There’s a political war over DEI going on across the country,” Flores says, pointing to her own state, where the legislature recently voted to eliminate all DEI offices at public universities. “What that tells me is that states will still be able to do what they want even if the court says the use of race is permissible.”
How might STEM training be affected?
The pipeline for faculty in STEM disciplines at the nation’s top research universities is filled by those who have earned their undergraduate and graduate degrees from similarly elite institutions. That pattern, says Rutgers University’s Marybeth Gasman, has contributed to a chronic underrepresentation of minority STEM faculty through what she calls “systemic racism in faculty hiring.” An expansive high court ruling against using race in admissions, says Gasman, an education professor and associate research dean, could hamstring universities that are trying to “do the right thing” through race-conscious admissions and other DEI initiatives.
What about private philanthropy efforts designed to diversify the STEM workforce?
They are unlikely to be affected directly, although a broad ruling could make some universities wary of participating in any program that could be targeted in a future lawsuit. Initiatives like a new $1.5 billion program at the Howard Hughes Medical Institute to support early-career faculty with a commitment to a more diverse STEM workforce would become even more important, Flores says. “I’d like to see every corporation or philanthropy that supported Black Lives Matter step up and fund a ton of scholarships,” she says.
Would a ban on race-conscious admissions end all academia-based diversity programs?
No, says attorney Jamie Lewis Keith, a former senior university administrator now at EducationCounsel, a consulting firm. Although the status quo is the least likely of five possible outcomes, Keith told an online gathering of senior academic leaders last month, she urged them not to despair. “Even if the worst case happens,” she said, which she described as a ban on any consideration of race, “it’s critical to resist characterizing the decision as a monolithic, doomsday outcome that will obliterate an institution’s ability to pursue DEI.”
She and other experts on diversity think the justices will leave room for efforts that draw on the concerns and life experiences of minorities to create a more inclusive academic environment without making race an eligibility criterion. One example, Griffin says, might be a so-called “cluster hiring” of faculty to study marginalized communities, an interdisciplinary research topic “that we know is of interest to scholars of color.” DEI experts say more aggressive outreach to high schools with large numbers of minority students could also improve the racial diversity of future entering classes without violating a ban on race-conscious admissions.
How a pending Supreme Court ruling on affirmative action could affect the scientific workforce - Science
Read More
No comments:
Post a Comment