Last week, Columbia University became the first Ivy League school to permanently scrap its standardized test requirement, allowing hopeful applicants to skip the dreaded SAT and ACT.
The move makes the prestigious New York City school the latest in a string of elite institutions to move away from the tests as the argument that standardized testing harms minority students picks up steam. Previously, a low SAT or ACT score meant automatic elimination at many top-tier schools.
In a March 1 <a href="https://undergrad.admissions.columbia.edu/columbia-test-optional" target="_blank" rel="noopener">release,</a> Columbia University wrote that &#8220;students are dynamic, multi-faceted individuals who cannot be defined by any single factor.&#8221; The admissions process respects the &#8220;varied backgrounds, voices and experiences&#8221; of students in order to determine whether a student will thrive at the school, Columbia said. Students may still submit test scores, but those who do not will not be at a disadvantage.
During the pandemic, many universities — including Harvard and Princeton — jumped at the chance to indefinitely suspend their standardized test admission requirements while in-person testing was on hold. Now, some like Columbia don&#8217;t want to go back.
In 2020, the entire 10-school University of California system <a href="https://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/press-room/university-california-board-regents-unanimously-approved-changes-standardized-testing" target="_blank" rel="noopener">voted</a> to permanently get rid of standardized tests. The move came after a <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/10/us/sat-act-uc-lawsuit.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">lawsuit</a> from students claiming the tests are racist and biased against disabled students. New York University, Cornell College, George Washington University, and University of Chicago have also joined the ranks of those that <a href="https://www.uopeople.edu/blog/colleges-that-dont-require-sat-or-act/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">allow</a> students to skip the tests.
This fall, <a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaeltnietzel/2022/11/15/more-than-80-of-four-year-colleges-wont-require-standardized--tests-for-fall-2023-admissions/?sh=760c3bd17fb9" target="_blank" rel="noopener">more than 80%</a> of undergraduate colleges will not require ACT or SAT scores from students, according to one estimate.
The SAT and ACT are also not the only standardized tests schools are ditching over &#8220;equity&#8221; concerns. Dozens of law schools have <a href="https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/lsat-optional-law-school-admissions-hit-snag-with-aba-vote" target="_blank" rel="noopener">scrapped</a> their LSAT test requirement. Advocates are even <a href="https://www.kevinmd.com/2019/09/its-time-to-abolish-the-mcat.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">pushing</a> for medical schools to stop requiring the MCAT, alarming critics who worry that schools could end up graduating less qualified doctors, putting patients at risk.
The argument that standardized tests are inherently racist has given rise to eyebrow-raising explanations for why minority students on the whole <a href="https://www.insidehighered.com/admissions/article/2019/09/24/minority-and-first-generation-sat-scores-fall-behind" target="_blank" rel="noopener">do worse</a> on these tests. Black students perform poorly on standardized tests because they fear incorrect answers will confirm negative stereotypes about their race — they perform badly because they&#8217;re afraid of performing badly, essentially — a 2011 Stanford University study <a href="https://www.bet.com/article/cuz1xn/why-do-black-students-perform-poorly-on-standardized-tests" target="_blank" rel="noopener">found</a>.
A more plausible explanation is that minority students <a href="https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2015/09/03/sat-scores-drop-and-racial-gaps-remain-large" target="_blank" rel="noopener">often come</a> from low-income backgrounds and neighborhoods where students may not have support systems or quality schools helping them prepare well for the test.
Now, a new deadline has turned up the pressure on schools to get rid of standardized tests.
The Supreme Court is preparing to rule against affirmative action this summer. This means universities will have to find new ways to keep their student body diverse, like eliminating standardized testing.
The high court is widely expected to rule in June that affirmative action is unconstitutional and racist in a pair of cases involving Harvard and the University of North Carolina. A group called Students for Fair Admissions <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/scotus-hinting-it-might-throw-out-affirmative-action-used-in-college-admissions" target="_blank" rel="noopener">sued</a> the schools, accusing them of unfairly factoring race into their admissions process. The group pointed to the high test scores of Asian-American and white applicants who were rejected.
Universities, including selective ones, are scrambling to find ways to replace affirmative action.
Cornell has <a href="https://news.cornell.edu/stories/2022/12/pollack-establishes-task-force-undergraduate-admissions#:~:text=Cornell%20joined%20other%20institutions%20in%20filing%20amicus%20briefs,the%20admissions%20offices%20supporting%20each%20college%20and%20school." target="_blank" rel="noopener">established</a> a task force to figure out how to recruit diverse classes if the Supreme Court nixes affirmative action. The University of California system board of regents banned affirmative action back in 1995, so UC <a href="https://edsource.org/2020/dropping-affirmative-action-had-huge-impact-on-californias-public-universities/642437" target="_blank" rel="noopener">adopted</a> roundabout ways of trying to identify minority students such as poor neighborhoods and family income. Some schools may now follow in UC&#8217;s footsteps.
Hans Bader, a longtime civil rights lawyer who worked in the federal Office for Civil Rights, said schools are trying to &#8220;reduce reliance on merit-based criteria&#8221; ahead of the ruling.
&#8220;They hope that by doing so, the number of admitted black applicants will increase as a result,&#8221; Bader told The Daily Wire. &#8220;They hope that will offset the result of the Supreme Court&#8217;s ruling, which could make it much harder for them to give an overt racial preference to black applicants in admissions, and thus could reduce the number of admitted black applicants significantly.&#8221;
&#8220;Their students will be dumber as a result,&#8221; Bader predicted.

SAT College Exams To Undergo Major Changes

Universities Scrap SAT, Scramble To Stay Diverse Ahead Of Affirmative Action Ruling

Affirmative Action

Education

Harvard

Princeton University

Supreme Court

U.S.

University of California

President Johnson’s Executive Order 11246 in 1965 required federal contractors, for the first time, to take affirmative action to ensure equal opportunity based on race, color, religion, and national origin. 
The Supreme Court has since weighed in on several affirmative action cases, with two more at <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/scotus-hinting-it-might-throw-out-affirmative-action-used-in-college-admissions" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Harvard and UNC </a> forthcoming, but thus far, have found that schools may consider race as part of the admissions process. 
Meanwhile, with increasing frequency, our government, private corporations, academic institutions, and other organizations are doling out significant rewards and preferences to individuals and groups of individuals based on color, race, gender, and other select characteristics. 
Consider the following:
<ul>
<li>Recent distribution of the COVID vaccine in many areas was prioritized not for the patients who were most vulnerable and in need of the vaccine, but on the basis of race. Further, pharmaceutical giant Pfizer recently announced a prestigious fellowship that will specifically exclude whites and Asians.</li>
<li>Our president recently announced that he would not consider any candidates for the open job of Supreme Court Justice who were male, white, Asian, or any race other than black. He subsequently announced that billions of dollars of the American Rescue Plan would go specifically to black farmers perceived to have been disadvantaged by racism. And just this weekend he announced a new multimillion-dollar “Climate Gender Equity Fund” to address purported inequalities women face in climate finance.</li>
<li>Our vice president recently <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/elon-musk-slams-kamala-harris-for-racial-remarks-about-distributing-disaster-assistance" target="_blank" rel="noopener">announced that neighborhoods of color</a> would receive top priority for federal aid in the wake of Hurricane Ian.</li>
<li>The Minnesota Teachers Union recently finalized a contract that requires the school district to <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/teachers-union-requires-white-teachers-be-fired-before-educators-of-color-to-remedy-past-discrimination" target="_blank" rel="noopener">fire non-minority teachers first</a> if layoffs become necessary, regardless of their seniority in teaching or in the district. </li>
<li>Similarly, Twilio announced it will follow its “anti-racist” credo as it cuts its workforce by 11%.</li>
</ul>
Many of our universities now openly give heavy preference to some races for admission and other areas. A comparison of equivalent MCAT and GPA scores among races of medical school applicants shows that Hispanics/Latinos and Blacks for example now have a dramatically higher chance of being accepted to medical school than Caucasians, and an even greater advantage over Asians. 
Further, many of our universities now arrange for segregated dormitory occupancy, commencement ceremonies, and other campus events. An increasing amount of state funding for public universities is determined by their performance in “first generation” enrollment. Accordingly, increasing amounts of scholarship money are available to these students. 
This is but a sampling of the rapidly expanding benefits being awarded.
<h3>Who Is &#8216;Blue&#8217;?</h3>
A sort of short-hand may prove efficient for further discussion here, giving the generic term of &#8216;Blue&#8217; to any of the variety of attributes that produce the types of special consideration and rewards referenced above. 
A &#8216;Blue&#8217; person is a preferred candidate, depending on the given rubric — possibly female, transgender, Hispanic/Latino, Black, Native American, or any race other than Caucasian or Asian, or one with the requisite attributes of the constructed category. 
As both the  number of these decisions and their consequences have grown, so has the debate regarding the legality, fairness, and usefulness involved. But an equally pressing, perhaps more seminal question pertains to the simple definition of the categories involved. 
Put bluntly, “Who is &#8216;Blue&#8217;?” — not conceptually, but in actual practice. 
One might assume that the answer to this question would be straight forward, that the favored attributes of &#8216;Blue&#8217; are discreet, justly and easily assessed, uniformly applied across all organizations, and well understood by both applicants and the public. That is far from true.
Many people are surprised to learn that currently, determination of both gender and specific race for students and employees is legally the individual himself. It is determined by whatever boxes are checked by the applicant on the official application — for admission, employment, or a loan for example. 
A person who might appear to be Asian to many observers might in fact contend (check the box) that he is Native American or black, or any other race with which he self-identifies. Any employer, committee member, or interviewer who would counter the applicant’s declaration would be doing so illegally.
Determining who is &#8216;Blue&#8217; raises all sorts of uncomfortable and ugly questions — harkening back to the controversial One-Drop-Rule of the slavery era.
Nevertheless, avoiding the questions doesn’t mean they won’t get answered. In fact, they are being answered now – albeit often behind closed doors. If we intend to continue expanding &#8216;Blue&#8217; as a license to rewards and opportunity, here are some of the types of questions that are pressing:
<ul>
<li>Am I &#8216;Blue&#8217; if, as with the U.S. Census Bureau, I simply identify as such – regardless of my appearance, genetics, or ethnicity? If the answer to this remains “yes,” are we prepared for what will undoubtedly be a massive increase in &#8216;Blue&#8217; candidates – perhaps more &#8216;Blue&#8217; than Non-Blue?</li>
<li>Is there a minimum percentage of a given race that I must genetically possess to be considered &#8216;Blue&#8217;? Is that percentage the same for all races?</li>
<li>What role does “color” or skin pigmentation play in the decision? Am I &#8216;Blue&#8217; if I am genetically Asian but with darker skin pigmentation than many black  Americans? Or 100% Hispanic or Latino genetically, but my skin pigmentation is lighter than many if not most Caucasians?</li>
<li>What role do environmental factors play in determining who is &#8216;Blue&#8217;? What if I am genetically Caucasian but adopted and raised by Black parents, or the reverse?</li>
<li>Are there gradations of &#8216;Blue&#8217; – combinations or degrees of attributes that make someone a deeper &#8216;Blue&#8217; than others; and accordingly, more deserving of preference/benefit? If so, who is more &#8216;Blue&#8217; – a person who is 80% Mexican genetically, born in Mexico and lived there for 10 years, is bilingual, and immigrates to the U.S., or a Mexican-American who is born and raised in New York, is 100% Mexican/Latino genetically, raised by Caucasian parents, and speaks English only – perhaps with a Brooklyn accent?</li>
<li>Am I &#8216;Blue&#8217; if one of my parents attended college, but not the other? Or neither of my parents attended, but all of my siblings did? Or if all of my family attended, but none graduated?</li>
<li>Are &#8216;Blue&#8217; policies exempted from Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act?</li>
</ul>
An almost infinite number of additional questions of this type can be constructed with variations of race, ethnicity, skin tone, gender, percentages, and scenarios.
Who is &#8216;Blue&#8217;? And then, there is an equally difficult second question: Who gets to answer the first question? Will these be decisions for the courts, or the candidates, or will they be left up to the individual institutions offering the given benefits?
With the tangible stakes alone determined by the answers to these questions now climbing into the hundreds of billions — likely trillions of dollars — it would seem urgent that they be addressed.
Dr. Greg Salsbury was president of Western Colorado University from 2014 to 2020. He is the author of the 2006 award winning book But What If I Live? the follow up book Retirementology – Rethinking the American Dream in a New Economy, which topped Amazon’s “personal finance” category. He earned his doctorate from the University of Southern California and received Master’s degrees from both the University of Illinois and USC’s Annenberg School for Communications.
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

Affirmative action in college admissions Supreme Court

As Supreme Court Mulls Affirmative Action On Campus, The Left Pushes For More Privileges Based On Race And Gender

Anti-Racism

Gender

Readers Pass

Universities

&#8220;The View&#8221; host <a href="https://dailywire.com/news/the-view-host-falsely-claims-there-is-no-such-thing-as-people-having-late-term-abortions/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Sara Haines</a> dared to defend Asian Americans during Wednesday&#8217;s broadcast of the ABC midday talk show, and her co-hosts rewarded her efforts by scolding her, stopping just short of labeling her a racist as well.
Haines and her co-hosts spent a portion of Wednesday&#8217;s show discussing one of the <a href="https://dailywire.com/news/whoopi-lectures-clarence-thomas-on-diversity-suggests-he-was-an-affirmative-action-case/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">cases</a> currently before the Supreme Court — which alleges that the &#8220;race-conscious&#8221; admissions policies adopted by a number of elite institutions effectively discriminated against Asian Americans — and co-hosts Whoopi Goldberg and Sunny Hostin chastised Haines for suggesting that the case might actually have merit.
WATCH:
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Citing unsourced statistics, Sunny Hostin claims people are being &quot;intellectually dishonest&quot; about Asian-Americans not liking affirm. action. &quot;These are just facts that I researched.&quot; Sara Haines calls her out citing a 2022 Pew pol; showing a majority of Asian Americans hate it. <a href="https://t.co/gpihxkq2sV">pic.twitter.com/gpihxkq2sV</a>
&mdash; Nicholas Fondacaro (@NickFondacaro) <a href="https://twitter.com/NickFondacaro/status/1587826970267717634?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 2, 2022</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Goldberg began the segment by lashing out at Supreme Court Justice <a href="https://dailywire.com/news/clarence-thomas-ive-heard-the-word-diversity-and-i-dont-have-a-clue-what-it-means/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Clarence Thomas</a> — who questioned the definition and value of the term &#8220;diversity&#8221; during oral arguments — lecturing him on the importance of Affirmative Action and all but claiming that he was a diversity hire.
Hostin jumped in then, saying that it was &#8220;intellectually dishonest&#8221; to claim that Asian Americans did not like Affirmative Action — but Haines pushed back immediately. Citing a 2022 Pew poll, Haines said that the majority of all Americans — to include Asian Americans — did not like it.
Hostin, after complaining that her son didn&#8217;t qualify for financial help from Harvard, argued that the move to stop race-conscious admissions was being driven by the far-Right — and that they&#8217;d come for LGBTQ rights and voting rights next. &#8220;This is a right-wing attack on our rights,&#8221; she said. &#8220;And it&#8217;s a concerted effort.&#8221;
Haines pushed back again, arguing that some of the policies amounted to racism.
WATCH:
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Haines drops more brutal fact checks showing how elite institutions are &#39;downright racist&quot; against Asian Americans. Sunny and Whoopi blow up when confronted with the fact that they want Asians discriminated against. Sunny almost accuses Sara of being racist. <a href="https://t.co/7zGRjAIckE">pic.twitter.com/7zGRjAIckE</a>
&mdash; Nicholas Fondacaro (@NickFondacaro) <a href="https://twitter.com/NickFondacaro/status/1587830275819667457?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 2, 2022</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
&#8220;Sunny, there are a lot of Asian Americans that are a part of this,&#8221; Haines argued, noting that the &#8220;personality ratings&#8221; being added into the admissions process also seemed to negatively impact Asian Americans.
&#8220;It can be started by a guy like that, but it doesn&#8217;t disrupt the facts that there&#8217;s a personality rating that Asian Americans are having trouble in regards to a cultural difference — it&#8217;s — I wouldn&#8217;t even say it&#8217;s discriminatory, it&#8217;s downright racist. They&#8217;re judging them on a personality score, and if you went on just test scores — which, by the way, people think high school grades first, then standardized test scores — 43% of these elite institutions would be Asian.&#8221;
&#8220;So it does &#8230; the problem with the &#8230; the Civil Rights movement was to say don&#8217;t discriminate against race, because discriminating hurts a race, fixing it with the same discrimination is going to hurt some other race,&#8221; Haines concluded.
&#8220;That&#8217;s not what happened,&#8221; Goldberg chastised Haines first, offering to &#8220;explain&#8221; the situation to her co-host.
&#8220;Unless you&#8217;re saying white people are discriminated against —&#8221; Hostin offered snidely.
&#8220;I think Asian Americans, at least in this instance,&#8221; Haines stood her ground.

Paramount Pictures, Paramount Players, Tyler Perry Studios and BET Films Present the World Premiere of ‘Nobody’s Fool’

‘It’s Downright Racist’: Sara Haines Dares To Defend Asian Americans, And Her Co-Hosts Scold Her For It

Sara Haines Dares To Defend Asian Americans, And Her Co-Hosts Scold Her For It

Media

Racism

Sunny Hostin

&#8220;The View&#8221; host Whoopi Goldberg lectured Supreme Court Justice <a href="https://dailywire.com/news/clarence-thomas-ive-heard-the-word-diversity-and-i-dont-have-a-clue-what-it-means/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Clarence Thomas</a> on the meaning of &#8220;diversity&#8221; during Wednesday&#8217;s broadcast, suggesting that Thomas himself might have benefitted from <a href="https://dailywire.com/news/the-supreme-court-may-kill-affirmative-action-heres-what-you-need-to-know/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Affirmative Action</a>.
Goldberg and her co-hosts spent a portion of the show discussing the Affirmative Action case that the Supreme Court heard this week, questioning the &#8220;race-conscious&#8221; admissions processes that elite colleges and universities have adopted. But what Goldberg focused her attention on was the fact that Thomas had questioned the definition and value of &#8220;diversity.&#8221;
WATCH:
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
The View defends &quot;race conscience&quot; (aka racist) affirmative action policies for university admissions. Ignorant Whoopi lectures Justice Thomas on the definition of &quot;diversity.&quot; She claims affirmative action is for white women. She ignores how Asians are not being admitted. <a href="https://t.co/M7AHWiuhTY">pic.twitter.com/M7AHWiuhTY</a>
&mdash; Nicholas Fondacaro (@NickFondacaro) <a href="https://twitter.com/NickFondacaro/status/1587824463856427009?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 2, 2022</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
&#8220;I&#8217;ve heard the word diversity quite a few times, and I don&#8217;t have a clue what it means,&#8221; Thomas said during oral arguments. &#8220;It seems to mean everything for everyone.&#8221;
Goldberg disagreed, launching into a tirade aimed at the Supreme Court justice and suggesting that he might not have made it to the highest court in the land without a little &#8220;help.&#8221;
&#8220;Actually, no, that&#8217;s not what it means, sir,&#8221; Goldberg said, adjusting her glasses, and sighing dramatically. &#8220;You know, being inclusive means that when you look around that court, you&#8217;re seeing women who may not have had the ability to go to law school had Affirmative Action not been there to make sure that women were allowed in the school.&#8221;
&#8220;You are sitting on a court where – and I know that you don&#8217;t like to admit this — but you might have gotten some help, because you would not have been allowed in the college of your choice had it not been for Affirmative Action,&#8221; she continued.
&#8220;It is not saying this is all you have to do,&#8221; she added. &#8220;It is saying you have to include this as what you do, and you also ought to mention that the people who have benefitted most from Affirmative Action have been women who are white. Because white women could not get into some of these schools, they were not allowed to move forward.&#8221;
Goldberg went on to complain that Affirmative Action was put into place to make room for those who were previously not allowed to attend specific institutions where they believed they might excel. She made no effort to address the <a href="https://dailywire.com/news/scotus-hinting-it-might-throw-out-affirmative-action-used-in-college-admissions/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">actual case</a>, which alleges that &#8220;race-conscious&#8221; admission policies effectively discriminate against Asian Americans.

US-JUSTICE-SUPREME-COURT-GROUP-PHOTO

Whoopi Lectures Clarence Thomas On Diversity, Suggests He Was An Affirmative Action Case

Clarence Thomas

The View

Whoopi Goldberg

The Supreme Court is in the midst of hearing two cases which could enable them to roll back affirmative action colleges and universities use for admissions.
Students for Fair Admissions Inc. v. President &amp; Fellows of Harvard College and Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. University of North Carolina both ask the Supreme Court to overrule Grutter v. Bollinger, in which a divided Supreme Court ruled that the University of Michigan Law School could consider race in its admissions process.
But at the time of the Grutter decision in 2003, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, who held with the majority opinion, stated, “We expect that 25 years from now, the use of racial preferences will no longer be necessary.”
Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA) argues that Harvard has violated Title VI of the Civil Rights Act by discriminating based on race while still obtaining federal funding. SFFA challenges the University of North Carolina by accusing it of violating the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause by using race in its admissions policy when the university already has a diverse student body.
Patrick Strawbridge, representing SSFA, cited Brown v. Board of Education, which struck down racial segregation in public schools in 1954, contending “racial classifications are wrong.” He asked the Court to not only overrule Grutter, but also Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, which upheld using race as a yardstick in 1978.
The conservative justices on the Court made some pointed remarks this week hinting they might lean toward ending affirmative action policies used in college admissions.
Justice Samuel Alito asked bluntly when a court was supposed to determine the benefits of diversity have been achieved; Justice Amy Coney Barrett echoed, “When does it end? When is your sunset? When will you know?”
Barrett also pointed out that decades have passed since Bakke, continuing of reaching diversity “What if it continues to be difficult in another 25 years?”
Even Chief Justice John Roberts, who often votes with the Court’s leftist justices, reacted when U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar argued that “there is an endpoint in sight,” telling her that her contention “was very different from what Justice O’Connor said” in Grutter, adding, “She said race-conscious admissions programs must be limited in time. That was a requirement,” as Amy Howe of <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/2022/10/affirmative-action-appears-in-jeopardy-after-marathon-arguments/">ScotusBlog</a> noted.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh chimed in by noting that since Grutter, nine states have barred public universities from using race in the admissions process.  “Those examples now show with greater confidence that universities can use race-neutral programs that “produce significant numbers of minority students on campus,” he declared.

Collage Maker-02-Nov-2022-12.28-PM

SCOTUS Hinting It Might Throw Out Affirmative Action Used In College Admissions

Courts

Race

Activists behind the push to end <a href="http://dailywire.com/topic/affirmative-action" target="_blank" rel="noopener">affirmative action</a> are confident that the <a href="http://dailywire.com/topic/supreme-court" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Supreme Court</a> will overturn precedents upholding <a href="http://dailywire.com/topic/diversity" target="_blank" rel="noopener">race-conscious</a> admissions following oral arguments on Monday.
Students for Fair Admissions, a legal advocacy group which opposes granting applicants an advantage because of their racial identity, has filed <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/just-in-supreme-court-will-hear-cases-challenging-race-based-affirmative-action" target="_blank" rel="noopener">complaints</a> against both Harvard University and the University of North Carolina for “employing racially and ethnically discriminatory policies and procedures” when accepting students. The <a href="http://studentsfor.wpenginepowered.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/SFFA-v.-Harvard-Complaint.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">lawsuit</a> against Harvard argued that Asian American students require significantly higher standardized test scores than their peers to gain admission to elite schools.
Justice Clarence Thomas and his conservative-leaning colleagues were <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/clarence-thomas-ive-heard-the-word-diversity-and-i-dont-have-a-clue-what-it-means" target="_blank" rel="noopener">skeptical</a> that racial diversity truly offers educational benefits and appeared to find arguments offered by North Carolina State Solicitor General Ryan Park largely unpersuasive. Students For Fair Admissions President Edward Blum said during an interview with The Daily Wire that he is optimistic regarding a favorable outcome.
“I thought it was a very deeply engaging argument,” he commented. “I remain hopeful that the arguments that both of our attorneys made will be persuasive to the court, and that ultimately the court will strike down the use of race and ethnicity in college admissions.”
Blum referenced several examples of universities largely attended by a particular racial group, including Spelman College, a historically black school, and the University of Texas San Antonio, a predominantly Hispanic college, and said one would have difficulty proving that students’ experiences are diminished by a lack of peers belonging to other ethnicities. “There are lots of very competitive universities that have virtually no racial diversity,” he noted. “I think if we talked to those students, they would say they purposefully wanted to go to those universities. Having a diverse student body for some is very important. For some, it&#8217;s not important at all.”
Color Us United President Kenny Xu, who was instrumental in encouraging residents of California to overwhelmingly reject a <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/californias-affirmative-action-proposition-failed-thanks-to-latinos-and-asians" target="_blank" rel="noopener">ballot measure</a> that would have returned affirmative action to the state, told The Daily Wire that schools embracing affirmative action violate “two sacrosanct principles” of the American experiment.
“The first is, don&#8217;t treat anybody by your race. You should be treated by the content of your character, not the color of your skin,” he said. “The second is meritocracy as the basis for the American dream. That is why immigrants come to this country: because they believe that they&#8217;re not going to be treated on the basis of their background. Because this is a land of opportunity, and that we will have a chance to work hard and make it in this country.”
Several analyses have uncovered the disadvantages faced by Asian Americans in college admissions processes seeking to reserve places for black and Hispanic students. One study from 2009 concluded that Asians required an SAT score roughly 140 points higher than white applicants, 270 points higher than Hispanic applicants, and 450 points higher than black applicants, according to a <a href="https://asianamericanforeducation.org/en/issue/discrimination-on-admissions/">report</a> from the Asian American Coalition for Education.
Xu, who was in attendance while the Supreme Court heard oral arguments, noted that strong majorities of Asians, Hispanics, whites, and a near-majority of black voters in California rejected the affirmative action measure, implying that the issue extends beyond ethnic lines. Indeed, nearly three-quarters of Americans believe colleges and universities should not consider race or ethnicity when making admissions decisions, according to a <a href="https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/02/25/most-americans-say-colleges-should-not-consider-race-or-ethnicity-in-admissions/">poll</a> from Pew Research.
“We need a really strong ruling from the Supreme Court, not just the unsurprising ruling that Harvard is discriminating and they need to stop doing that. We need to establish some principles,” Xu continued. “We didn&#8217;t choose to be born Asian. And what Harvard is doing by trying to judge us on something we can&#8217;t control is basically making us ashamed of being Asian. That&#8217;s really sad, because no one should be ashamed of their race in this country. Harvard&#8217;s policy forces that into consideration.”
Legacy media outlets centered their coverage of the Supreme Court cases on Blum and his conservative leanings. One <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2022/10/30/politics/scotus-affirmative-action-college-admissions-edward-blum/index.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">article</a> from CNN said that he had “designed” the arguments to “reach a friendly Supreme Court,” although Blum affirmed that opposing affirmative action is a policy that crosses racial and partisan lines.
“There&#8217;s an old expression: every lawsuit needs a villain, and the corollary to that is every lawsuit needs a hero. I see myself as neither hero nor villain,” Blum commented. “Sometimes media outlets look for a human angle, as opposed to concentrating and focusing on the legal issues and the policy issues. It’s a bit of an intellectually lazy way of going about making a story more interesting.”

FC1DD5CC-6F67-48E8-A934-0E4F10FA2D6D_1_201_a

Supreme Court Poised To Overturn Affirmative Action Precedents, Key Activists Forecast

Key Activists Optimistic That The Supreme Court Will Overturn Affirmative Action

Diversity

Justice <a href="http://dailywire.com/topic/clarence-thomas" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Clarence Thomas</a> expressed skepticism that racial <a href="http://dailywire.com/topic/diversity" target="_blank" rel="noopener">diversity</a> has a salient impact on <a href="http://dailywire.com/topic/colleges" target="_blank" rel="noopener">educational</a> outcomes on Monday as the <a href="http://dailywire.com/topic/supreme-court" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Supreme Court</a> weighed arguments regarding <a href="http://dailywire.com/topic/affirmative-action" target="_blank" rel="noopener">affirmative action</a> in university admissions.
Students for Fair Admissions, a legal advocacy group which opposes providing applicants an advantage because of their racial identity, has filed <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/just-in-supreme-court-will-hear-cases-challenging-race-based-affirmative-action" target="_blank" rel="noopener">complaints</a> against both Harvard University and the University of North Carolina for “employing racially and ethnically discriminatory policies and procedures” when accepting students. The <a href="http://studentsfor.wpenginepowered.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/SFFA-v.-Harvard-Complaint.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">lawsuit</a> against Harvard argued that Asian-American students need significantly higher test scores to gain admission to elite schools.
North Carolina State Solicitor General Ryan Park mentioned the “educational benefits of diversity” a number of times during his arguments. In response, Thomas challenged the attorney to present “a specific definition” in the context of the University of North Carolina, according to an official <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2022/21-707_9o6b.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">transcript</a> published by the Supreme Court.
“I&#8217;ve heard the word &#8216;diversity&#8217; quite a few times, and I don&#8217;t have a clue what it means. It seems to mean everything for everyone,” Thomas, who is known for speaking very rarely during oral arguments, remarked. “I&#8217;d also like you to give us a clear idea of exactly what the educational benefits of diversity at the University of North Carolina would be.”
After Park cited studies claiming that racial diversity leads to “a deeper and richer learning environment,” as well as the promotion of creative thinking and the reduction of racial bias, Thomas noted that he still had not provided the precise educational benefits of diversity. When Park referred to another study indicating that traders made better investment decisions within racially diverse teams, Thomas said that he does not “put much stock in that” because he has heard “similar arguments in favor of segregation too.”
Thomas, one of two African-Americans on the Supreme Court, has repeatedly written opinions against affirmative action in the past. As he hinted during the Monday hearings, Thomas noted in a 2012 <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/11-345_l5gm.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">opinion</a> that segregationists once argued their policies would provide more leadership opportunities for blacks. “It is irrelevant under the Fourteenth Amendment whether segregated or mixed schools produce better leaders,” he said, noting that no court today would uphold segregation merely because historically black colleges produced individuals such as Booker T. Washington and Thurgood Marshall.
Other members of the Supreme Court on Monday likewise appeared to doubt the merits of the defendants’ arguments. Justice Amy Coney Barrett noted that a previous decision concluded all governmental use of race must have “a logical endpoint” and “sunset provisions,” then expressed doubt to Park that the University of North Carolina’s policies had such provisions in place. Justice Brett Kavanaugh raised similar concerns, noting that “racial classifications are potentially dangerous.”
Several analyses have highlighted the disadvantages faced by Asian-Americans in college admissions processes seeking to reserve places for black and Hispanic students. One study from 2009 concluded that Asians required an SAT score approximately 140 points higher than white applicants, 270 points higher than Hispanic applicants, and 450 points higher than black applicants, according to a <a href="https://asianamericanforeducation.org/en/issue/discrimination-on-admissions/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">report</a> from the Asian American Coalition for Education.
Commentators generally agreed that the court is poised to overturn precedents related to affirmative action. Justices on the Supreme Court opposed to the practice may have an advantage in the case against Harvard, as Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, who was appointed by President Joe Biden, recused herself since she recently concluded a six-year term on the Harvard Board of Overseers.

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas

Clarence Thomas: ‘I’ve Heard The Word Diversity’ And ‘I Don’t Have A Clue What It Means’

Clarence Thomas Questions The Value Of 'Diversity' In Heated Supreme Court Exchange

College

The <a href="http://dailywire.com/topic/supreme-court" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Supreme Court</a> heard two cases on Monday that could lead justices to rule against <a href="http://dailywire.com/topic/affirmative-action" target="_blank" rel="noopener">affirmative action</a>, a policy by which <a href="http://dailywire.com/topic/colleges" target="_blank" rel="noopener">universities</a> promote individuals of various <a href="http://dailywire.com/topic/diversity" target="_blank" rel="noopener">minority</a> groups in admissions processes.
Students for Fair Admissions, a legal advocacy group which opposes affirmative action, has filed <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/just-in-supreme-court-will-hear-cases-challenging-race-based-affirmative-action" target="_blank" rel="noopener">complaints</a> against both Harvard University and the University of North Carolina for “employing racially and ethnically discriminatory policies and procedures” when accepting students. The <a href="http://studentsfor.wpenginepowered.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/SFFA-v.-Harvard-Complaint.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">lawsuit</a> against Harvard argued that Asian-American students need significantly higher standardized test scores to gain entrance into elite colleges.
Conservative-leaning members of the Supreme Court expressed a high degree of skepticism toward race-conscious admissions practices as lawyers for both universities presented their arguments. Justice Brett Kavanaugh said that such policies are “potentially dangerous and must have a logical end point,” while Justice Amy Coney Barrett asked attorneys for the University of North Carolina when the “sunset” for the policies can be expected. Justice Clarence Thomas said that he has “heard the word ‘diversity’ quite a few times” and does not “have a clue what it means.”
&#8220;College admissions are a zero-sum game,&#8221; Justice Samuel Alito added, according to a <a href="https://www.reuters.com/legal/us-supreme-court-tackles-harvard-unc-race-conscious-admissions-2022-10-31/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">report</a> from Reuters. &#8220;And if you give a &#8216;plus&#8217; to a person who falls within the category of under-represented minority, but not to somebody else, then you are disadvantaging the other student.&#8221;
Numerous studies have indeed highlighted the disadvantages faced by Asian-Americans in college admissions processes seeking to reserve places for black and Hispanic students. One study from 2009 concluded that Asians required an SAT score approximately 140 points higher than white applicants, 270 points higher than Hispanic applicants, and 450 points higher than black applicants, according to a <a href="https://asianamericanforeducation.org/en/issue/discrimination-on-admissions/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">report</a> from the Asian American Coalition for Education.
Justices on the Supreme Court opposed to affirmative action may have an advantage in the case against Harvard, as Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, a liberal appointed by President Joe Biden, recused herself since she recently concluded a six-year term on the Harvard Board of Overseers.
Conservative policy analysts at the Heritage Foundation said that the Supreme Court has an opportunity to “correct a wrong that has unfairly punished students across this country seeking to attend the school of their choosing,” according to a press release provided to The Daily Wire.
“American colleges and universities should welcome all students who have the academic capabilities, interests, and values to perform well in their institutions,” Heritage Foundation Center for Education Policy Director Lindsey Burke remarked. “They should reject racial preferences in favor of genuine diversity — a student body admitted based on merit that has a wide range of life experiences and political and philosophical viewpoints, all of which contribute to a robust climate of free expression and academic inquiry on campus.”
“The college admissions process should be focused on bringing the best and brightest minds to an institution, not making elite liberals feel good about their ‘racial sensitivity,’ which is all the euphemistically named ‘affirmative action’ does,” Heritage Foundation senior fellow Mike Gonzalez added. “Affirmative action does not solve the problem of why members of some groups fall behind academically. It does not address failing public schools, worsening socioeconomic and family formation issues, or high out-of-wedlock birth rates that hold people down. Instead, affirmative action mandates by imperial fiat that a certain percentage of a college must be filled with a certain group.”

US-JUSTICE-SUPREME-COURT

The Supreme Court May Kill Affirmative Action. Here’s What You Need To Know.

Here's What You Need To Know As The Supreme Court Prepares To End Affirmative Action

In the name of equity, the <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/aclu">American Civil Liberties Union</a> (ACLU) <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/aclu">announced</a> on Monday that it supports allowing <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/colleges">colleges</a> to <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/racism">racially discriminate</a> when deciding the admission of certain applicants.
The ACLU reported that it had filed amicus curiae briefs in two cases before the United States Supreme Court, <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/students-for-fair-admissions-inc-v-president-fellows-of-harvard-college/">Students for Fair Admissions v. President and Fellows of Harvard College</a> and <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/students-for-fair-admissions-inc-v-university-of-north-carolina/">Students for Fair Admissions v. University of North Carolina</a>, both of which challenge whether or not higher education can legally consider race in its application approval process.
&#8220;Ending the consideration of race in college admissions would ignore the country’s ongoing challenge of racial inequality and threaten diversity and inclusion on campuses everywhere,” Sarah Hinger, senior staff attorney with the ACLU Racial Justice Program, <a href="https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/aclu-files-amicus-brief-supreme-court-supporting-universities-ability-consider-race">said</a> in a press release.
“Race-conscious admissions practices help create a diverse student body and enrich the educational experiences of all students,&#8221; Hinger argued. &#8220;The Supreme Court’s holdings have recognized this for decades, and we urge the court to protect universities’ ability to consider race in the admissions process.”
The ACLU also tweeted, &#8220;All students deserve equitable access to higher education.&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
All students deserve equitable access to higher education.
Along with <a href="https://twitter.com/ACLU_Mass?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@ACLU_Mass</a> and <a href="https://twitter.com/ACLU_NC?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@ACLU_NC</a>, we are fighting to protect academic freedom and universities’ ability to grow a diverse student body.
&mdash; ACLU (@ACLU) <a href="https://twitter.com/ACLU/status/1554151351780839424?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">August 1, 2022</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Proponents of race-based admissions claim that it helps minorities, but opponents point out that such policies often harm Asian Americans.
&#8220;It’s been argued that Asian Americans have to score as much as 450 points higher on the SAT to have a similar chance of admission as black students,&#8221; Kenny Xu, author of &#8220;An Inconvenient Minority,&#8221; <a href="https://nypost.com/2021/07/04/a-chance-for-supremes-to-end-harvards-asian-discrimination/">wrote</a> in 2021. &#8220;In 2020, Duke economics professor Peter Arcidiacono found that a black student in the fourth-lowest academic decile has a higher chance of admissions than an Asian in the top decile.&#8221;
&#8220;Harvard disproportionately scores Asian Americans the lowest on &#8216;personality&#8217; to justify this discrimination — a case of blatant snobbery not backed up by data: Asians score just as well as whites and other minorities in alumni interviews,&#8221; Xu noted.
In reaction to the ACLU&#8217;s support for affirmative action, columnist David Marcus tweeted, &#8220;I want to see the head of the @aclu sit down with the Asian kid whose immigrant parents operate a small bodega that can’t go to Harvard even though he earned it and explain why it’s for the best. Not best for him maybe, but for somebody else.&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
I want to see the head of the <a href="https://twitter.com/ACLU?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@aclu</a> sit down with the Asian kid whose immigrant parents operate a small bodega that can’t go to Harvard even though he earned it and explain why it’s for the best. Not best for him maybe, but for somebody else. <a href="https://t.co/LD5aNc2D3j">https://t.co/LD5aNc2D3j</a>
&mdash; David Marcus (@BlueBoxDave) <a href="https://twitter.com/BlueBoxDave/status/1554511750673956864?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">August 2, 2022</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Legal experts like Alex Deise, an attorney and policy manager at FreedomWorks, have also argued that the two cases present an opportunity for the High Court to undo decades of bad legal precedent.
“By taking these cases, the Supreme Court has a historic opportunity to eliminate the ability of colleges and universities to explicitly discriminate on the basis of race in their admissions process,” Deise <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/attorney-supreme-court-has-historic-opportunity-to-end-race-based-college-admissions">told</a> The Daily Wire in January.
Deise noted that a 2003 case that allowed affirmative action to stand was not only not based on the Constitution, but it was also a bad way to stop race-based discrimination.
&#8220;The Court made a serious mistake in <a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/539/306/#tab-opinion-1961291" target="_blank" rel="noopener" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/539/306/%23tab-opinion-1961291&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1643221213087000&amp;usg=AOvVaw1o1AwJIdjrlFm5xRaqFD0E">Grutter v Bollinger</a> (2003) when it upheld these processes under the false notion that the educational benefits from a diverse student body was more important than the Equal Protection Clause’s central command of race neutrality,&#8221; he added. &#8220;The Court should overrule Grutter and heed Chief Justice Roberts advice from a similar case that ‘[t]he way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.’”

In The Name Of Equity, The ACLU Supports Racial Discrimination In College Admissions

ACLU Now Supports Race Discrimination In College Admissions

ACLU

A California law that would have required corporations based in the state to include racial minorities and LGBT people on their executive boards was struck down by a judge in Los Angeles Friday.
The law was declared unconstitutional by a judge in the Los Angeles County Superior Court in a lawsuit brought by conservative legal organization Judicial Watch, the <a href="https://apnews.com/article/business-los-angeles-california-race-and-ethnicity-racial-injustice-0c697c355c0224b13dc17ee18062b06f">Associated Press</a> reported. The ruling did not explain the Court&#8217;s reasoning.
The law was signed by California Governor Gavin Newsom in 2020. It would have required publicly traded companies headquartered in California to have at least one member on their executive boards of directors from an &#8220;underrepresented community,&#8221; which included African Americans, Latinos, Asians, Native Americans, or members of the LGBT community, by the end of 2021, either by adding an executive position or filling an existing vacancy. By the end of 2022, the law would have required companies with boards of 4-9 directors to have at least two directors from minority communities, and boards with 9 or more members to have at least three minority directors. Firms that did not comply would have faced fines of up to $100,000 dollars for first offenses and $300,000 for repeated offenses, AP reported.
The suit was filed by Judicial Watch in October 2020. The organization said that using taxpayer dollars to enforce “[l]aws that explicitly distinguish between individuals on racial or ethnic, sexual preference, and transgender status grounds fall within the core of the prohibition of the equal protection clause.&#8221; California defended the law by arguing that the measure did not “discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting.” Citing a report from the California Secretary of State, AP also reported that about 300 of the 700 corporations that fell under the law had complied, while half of the companies had not even filed a mandated disclosure statement on the racial makeup of their boards. But to date, no companies had been fined, and the state argued in Court that no taxpayer dollars actually had been used to enforce the measure.
“This historic California court decision declared unconstitutional one of the most blatant and significant attacks in the modern era on constitutional prohibitions against discrimination,” Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said in a <a href="https://www.judicialwatch.org/quota-for-corporate-boards/">press release</a> after the ruling. “In its ruling today, the court upheld the core American value of equal protection under the law. Judicial Watch’s taxpayer clients are heroes for standing up for civil rights against the Left’s pernicious efforts to undo anti-discrimination protections.”
Judicial Watch also filed a lawsuit in January that challenged another California law requiring corporations to put women on their corporate boards. The Daily Wire <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/california-court-to-decide-on-law-requiring-women-on-corporate-boards">reported</a> at the time:
<blockquote>The suit claims that the law violates the equal protection clause of the California state constitution by mandating a gender quota and that using taxpayer funds to enforce the law is illegal. The suit comes nearly three years after the law was initially signed, <a href="https://apnews.com/article/business-lawsuits-california-los-angeles-constitutions-9c7f03545ee35723a3f6d5066128d0af">The Associated Press</a> reported&#8230;
The law, passed and signed by Governor Jerry Brown in 2018, required that publicly traded companies whose headquarters are located in California have at least one member of their board of directors who identifies as a woman by 2019. By January of this year, companies with boards comprised of five members must have two women, and boards with six or more members must have three. Companies that do not report the gender composition of their boards face fines of $100,000. Companies that do not comply with the gender composition mandates face fines of $100,000 for a first offense and $300,000 for subsequent offenses.</blockquote>
Judicial Watch completed closing arguments in that case in February, according to their <a href="https://www.judicialwatch.org/closing-arguments-ca-gender-quota/">website</a>.

Boardroom

Judge Strikes Down California’s Corporate Racial Diversity Law

California

A conservative group called Pacific Legal Foundation (PLF) is <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/attorney-discusses-lawsuits-against-new-unconstitutional-k-12-school-admissions-processes">challenging</a> recent changes to K-12 admissions policies in public schools across the country.
Erin Wilcox, attorney at PLF, told The Daily Wire, “This will be the first lawsuit of its kind where parents have challenged these racial proxies, where a judge would find that that is unconstitutional. So that&#8217;s a massive win, especially because lots of school districts across the country are kind of watching this case.”
PLF is looking to push back against so-called diversity initiatives in school admissions that a lot of K-12 schools have implemented in recent years. They filed a lawsuit on behalf of a group of parents, students, alumni, staff, and community members in Virginia over school admissions policies at a high school named Thomas Jefferson High School for Science and Technology.
On Friday, a federal judge <a href="https://pacificlegal.org/press-release/federal-judge-rules-that-admissions-changes-at-nations-top-public-school-discriminate-against-asian-american-students/">ruled</a> that Fairfax County school authorities broke the law by altering admissions requirements at the high school to deliberately limit the amount of Asian-American students enrolled at the school. 
As WTOP <a href="https://wtop.com/fairfax-county/2022/02/judge-new-admissions-policies-at-thomas-jefferson-high-school-for-science-and-technology-school-discriminate/">reported</a>: &#8220;The ruling from U.S. District Judge Claude Hilton found that impermissible &#8216;racial balancing&#8217; was at the core of the plan to overhaul admissions to Thomas Jefferson High School for Science and Technology, known as &#8216;TJ.&#8217; The school routinely ranks as the best or one of the best public schools in the country, and slots at the school are highly competitive.&#8221;
Hilton reportedly wrote in his ruling, “The discussion of admissions changes was infected with talk of racial balancing from its inception.”
WTOP noted:
<blockquote>Hilton, though, said the backdrop under which the school board acted showed that racial considerations were first and foremost on the mind. He noted that the death of George Floyd in May 2020 prompted calls for racial justice across the country. He also noted that the Virginia General Assembly and Department of Education were pushing schools like TJ — known as “Governor’s Schools” in Virginia — to develop plans to quickly address the lack of Black and Hispanic students.
“Throughout this process, Board members and high-level FCPS officials expressed their desire to remake TJ admissions because they were dissatisfied with the racial composition of the school,” Hilton wrote.</blockquote>
With the Thomas Jefferson case, the litigation is against specific policy changes made by the school, which the legal group says primarily hurt Asian students. The school claims that they’re maintaining merit-based and race-blind criteria, but lawyers with the Pacific Legal Foundation say the school is simply using other proxies to factor for race.
Thomas Jefferson High School is an elite tech school that used to admit students based on the merit of applications, but they recently made a change to accept the top 1.5% of students applying from each middle school in the feeder pattern, but not more than 1.5%. As the legal argument goes, they&#8217;re using geography as a proxy for race.
In the past, one middle school might let around 80 kids in, but now they’re capped at much fewer.
At Thomas Jefferson, the school changed its admission policies in 2020. After the policy changed, the school saw a drastic reduction in Asian students – from 73% to 54%. Other demographic groups, including white students, saw increases in admissions – only Asians saw a reduction.  
The Supreme Court has agreed to hear two cases regarding affirmative action from Harvard and the University of North Carolina. Those cases will likely be on deck for the upcoming term.
Affirmative action has been debated for decades at the collegiate level, and in some cases struck down, but a legal challenge like this one – at the K-12 level – is being watched as other schools across the country consider creating similar policies.
Last week, parents in San Francisco recalled three members of the city’s School Board over similar policies. In that instance, the San Francisco School Board voted to eliminate the merit-based system in favor of a lottery system to an elite high school, which was extremely unpopular with parents. At first, the changes were to accommodate pandemic restrictions. Later, the board said it would make them permanent for racial reasons. There has been some legal back and forth, but it’s an ongoing issue in San Francisco.
The Thomas Jefferson lawsuit is different from the cases before the Supreme Court, because Thomas Jefferson never specifically talks about race as part of its admissions criteria. This could open up a new avenue of legal action for parents and students.

9462B5C4-9FA0-4CA6-B08A-135824AB12D0_1_201_a

Conservative Group Challenges Racial Proxies In K-12 Admissions

A federal judge ruled Friday that school officials in Fairfax County, Virginia, violated the law by altering admissions requirements at the nation&#8217;s top-ranked high school, since the changes discriminated against Asian Americans.
Thomas Jefferson High School for Science and Technology in the Fairfax County Public Schools (FCPS) system, which is <a href="https://www.usnews.com/education/best-high-schools/virginia/districts/fairfax-county-public-schools/thomas-jefferson-high-school-for-science-and-technology-20461">ranked</a> by U.S. News &amp; World Report as the best school nationwide, came under fire last year for abolishing an entrance exam at which Asian students excelled, <a href="https://www.usnews.com/education/best-high-schools/virginia/districts/fairfax-county-public-schools/thomas-jefferson-high-school-for-science-and-technology-20461">The Daily Wire</a> reported. Community members, represented by Pacific Legal Foundation, filed a lawsuit against the school board last March.
U.S. District Judge Claude Hilton for Virginia&#8217;s Eastern District ruled that the admissions process change was discriminatory toward Asian American students. The school board had adopted an equity policy to balance racial groups, thereby gutting an exam on which Asians performed well, and accepting other minorities who did not do well largely on the test.
The first class of students under the new district policy showed Asian students were admitted in lesser numbers, The Daily Wire had reported in June 2021. There was a 54% reduction in Asian students, while an overwhelming 80% of parents said in two PTA polls that the admissions policy should continue like before.
&#8220;This is a monumental win for parents and students here in Fairfax County, but also for equal treatment in education across the country,” attorney Erin Wilcox for Pacific Legal Foundation said in a statement. &#8220;We hope this ruling sends the message that government cannot choose who receives the opportunity to attend public schools based on race or ethnicity.&#8221;
Asra Nomani, who co-founded the community member coalition opposing Fairfax County Public Schools&#8217; policy, applauded Judge Hilton for his ruling. &#8220;It is a victory for equality under the law, merit education and the American Dream,&#8221; said Nomani, vice president for investigations at Parents Defending Education. &#8220;We are so grateful to the team at Pacific Legal Foundation for being relentless defenders of justice.&#8221;
Hilton, who was appointed by former President Ronald Reagan, wrote in his ruling that &#8220;discussion of TJ admissions changes was infected with talk of racial balancing from its inception.” In addition to that, school board members &#8220;sought to use geography to obtain their desired racial outcome.&#8221; The judge wrote:
<blockquote>Even aside from the statements confirming that the board&#8217;s goal was to bring racial balance to TJ, the board&#8217;s requests for racial data demonstrate discriminatory intent. … Discriminatory intent does not require racial animus. What matters is that the board acted at least in part because of, not merely in spite of, the policy&#8217;s adverse effects upon an identifiable group.</blockquote>
&#8220;That is the case here,&#8221; the judge continued. &#8220;The board&#8217;s policy was designed to increase Black and Hispanic enrollment, which would, by necessity, decrease the representation of Asian-Americans at TJ.&#8221;
Admissions for the high school were previously race-blind and merit-based. The Fairfax school board also began awarding bonus points for things like attendance at a middle school that typically did not send many students to Thomas Jefferson, and mandated high school seats for 1.5% of every eighth grade middle school grade in the district.

Fairfax County

Fairfax County School Officials Broke Law Reducing Asian American Enrollment, Judge Rules

Virginia

Menu