A supreme challenge: Achieving the educational and societal benefits of diversity after the Supreme Court’s Fisher decision.

Abstract

This invited commentary provides a response to the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in the case of Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin (2013). The author addresses the question regarding whether the newest decision about the use of affirmative action in higher education admissions raised the bar with respect to the legal doctrine of strict scrutiny, under which colleges and universities must justify their race-conscious decisions. He concludes that the Court maintained the status quo with regard to the compelling interest of diversity and the deference courts should give to institutions of higher education as experts regarding their own educational missions. The Court also reiterated earlier decisions requiring that race-conscious programs be "narrowly tailored" to achieve the educational benefits of diversity, while underscoring the need for institutions to consider race-neutral alternatives to meet this interest. Given the legal and social landscape today, colleges and universities must focus on the bigger question at stake: how to best ensure access and opportunity for individuals of all backgrounds so as to provide the educational benefits of diversity for all students and fulfill this aspect of their educational missions-therefore creating engaged citizens for an increasingly diverse democracy and global citizens who can compete in an increasingly interdependent worldwide economy.

The Meanings of Race Matter

“…For example, offices that were once geared toward supporting ''minority'' students became ''multicultural,'' and summer bridge programs designed for assisting the transition to college for underrepresented students of color changed eligibility criteria to be based solely on income status (Cobham & Parker, 2007;Stewart, 2011). When coupled with the increasing backlash against and attacks on affirmative action (Allen, 2005;Orfield, Marin, Flores, & Garces, 2007) and push for race-neutral alternatives to college admissions given recent U.S. Supreme Court rulings (Alger, 2013), these more ''colorblind'' approaches to higher education may serve to fuel postracial claims that race-conscious practices are no longer needed because of the misperception that we have moved past race and that race no longer has to matter.…”

Employing Multilevel Intersectionality in Educational Research

“…State anti-affirmative action laws have restricted the criteria used to consider what constitutes "merit" in several states' public institutions, and have influenced decreases in Latinos' application and enrollment rates in highly selective public institutions in California (Oakes et al, 2006), Texas (Tienda, 2010), and Washington (Brown & Hirschman, 2006 Supreme Court decision in the Fisher v. University of Texas case did not result in the categorical banning of the consideration of race in college admissions, it left room to expose such policies to increased judicial "strict scrutiny" in the future (Alder, 2013;Schmidt, 2013). Collectively, these sets of policies affect Latino im/migrant students' educational opportunity in distinctive, yet related ways, and can influence Latino im/migrant students to feel as if postsecondary education, particularly selective postsecondary education, is out of reach (Gildersleeve, 2010;Núñez & Gildersleeve, 2014).…”

Affirmative Action at a Crossroads: Fisher and Forward

“…Further, at selective universities, these plans appear to have provided greater advantage to White female students and have not kept pace with the rapid rate of demographic change within three of the nation's largest and most diverse states. And while these plans may provide some benefit when layered on top of a highly segregated K–12 system in large and diverse states, other states may not reflect similar demographic patterns or geographic distribution of minority students (Alger, ). Percent plans are also unworkable for graduate schools or private institutions that draw students from a national pool and must simultaneously comply with standards under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, which apply to institutions receiving federal financial aid (Alger, ).…”

“…One analysis, for example, demonstrates that substituting class‐based affirmative action for group‐based affirmative action based on race, ethnicity, or gender can increase the marginalization of the underrepresented group by screening out more class‐advantaged members who would also be more likely to qualify for elite opportunities in the future (Darity, Deshpande, & Weisskopf, ). If all of an institution's underrepresented groups are drawn from disadvantaged backgrounds at the same time as majority students come from more advantaged backgrounds, this dichotomy can reinforce rather than defuse stereotypes (Alger, ). In the law school environment, for example, Lempert argues that students who represent diversity only by their low‐SES background are less likely to enrich the educational environment of the universities they attend or to serve as future social and political leaders (Lempert, ).…”

“…The Supreme Court rejected the proposition that the University of Michigan should decrease its emphasis on test scores and GPAs as an alternative to a race‐conscious admissions policy, indicating that such action would affect academic selectivity that is a vital part of the institution's mission (Coleman et al., ). In addition, the notion of “tolerable administrative expense” needs to be evaluated in the context of shrinking institutional budgets, particularly in light of the decreased investment by states in public higher education (Alger, ).…”