“Lie not to one another, seeing that we have put off the old man with his deeds and have put on the new man which is renewed in knowledge after the image of Him who created him, where there is neither Greek nor Jew, bond nor free, but Christ is all, and in all.” (Colossians 3: 9-11)
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights, and that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” (The Declaration of Independence)
“I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, with liberty and Justice for all.” (The Pledge of Allegiance.)
Crossroads: Where Faith and Culture Meet for College Admissions Policies
Will the Supreme Court finally stop colleges from using race-based preferences in admissions? That is the question that host Rita Peters and co-host Mark Meckler have before them in our Crossroads program this weekend. That’s because it is also the challenge that is now before the Court in the case of Students For Fair Admissions (SFFA) v. Harvard.
Harvard has a long and sordid history of focusing on race in admissions. It admits discrimination against Jewish students in the 1920s. However, it also defends its current process of giving preference to African American and Hispanic students.
Therefore, the Asian-American students of SFFA cry “foul.” Harvard’s system treats students of the same academic caliber very differently depending on their race. That, according to SFFA, must be stopped.
Here’s one cited example. An African-American student in the fourth-lowest academic segment of applicants has a higher chance of admission than an Asian-American student in the highest segment. This should strike any fair-minded person as grossly unfair.
The Case Law, Court Precedents, and More Problems with
College Affirmative Action Programs and Admissions Policies
The case law on college “affirmative action” programs is anything but clear.
For example, in Grutter v. Bollinger (2003) the Supreme Court upheld the consideration of race in college admissions. While racial classifications usually trigger the highest form of scrutiny, the Court found that student body “diversity” was a compelling interest for colleges. But it noted that this interest would diminish as our nation’s history of racism fades further into the past.
Not all of the Justices agreed. The late Justice Antonin Scalia and Justice Clarence Thomas staunchly opposed the idea that there could ever be a compelling interest in classifying people based on race. According to Scalia, “Where injustice is the game . . . turnabout is not fair play.”
Here’s the confusing part. On the same day the Court decided Grutter, it also decided Gratz v. Bollinger (2003). In that case, the Court struck down a policy that awarded “points” to applicants based solely on race. The Court found that policy invalid because it was not as “holistic” as the other.
So in 2003 the Court’s answer to whether colleges may consider students’ race in their admissions process was: maybe; sometimes. Not very helpful.
Diversity and the Problems with “Affirmative Action” for Admissions Policies
The answer now in 2023 should be, simply, “no.” In light of the profound harms posed by racial discrimination, colleges bent on achieving “diversity” should have to do so in some other way.
If the aim is simply a diverse student body, we should see colleges looking for students who speak multiple languages, hail from rural areas, grew up in single-parent homes, have parents in the military, and all manner of other traits.
But when it comes to the goal of “diversity,” there seems to be a single-minded focus on just three traits: race, gender, and sexual orientation. Current frameworks look at these three traits, and give some people (non-white, non-male, non-heterosexual) a diversity “credit” that no one else gets. In other words, they give these few types of people a leg up on everyone else.
However, diversity is not a feature of some people and not others. It’s a feature of our society as a whole. It results from the huge variety of traits, conditions, talents, and experiences that make us all different. In America, we have it in spades. But why do our institutions believe they need to engineer it into a given student body? And why do they think they should engineer it through processes that are simply unfair?
These unjust systems harm real people. Giving preferences to some students because of their race means handicapping other students because of theirs. Colleges that do this are creating new victims of racial discrimination. Therefore, this increases racial tension and resentment in society as a whole.
We would do well to heed the words of Justice Scalia: “To pursue the concept of racial entitlement – even for the most admirable and benign of purposes – is to reinforce and preserve for future mischief the way of thinking that produced race slavery, race privilege, and race hatred. However, in the eyes of government, we are just one race here. It is American.”
What a Real Celebration of Diversity Looks Like
Therefore, to truly celebrate true diversity, we should let people shine according to their naturally diverse talents, ideas, and abilities – and the contributions they make to our world.
In the arts, let’s celebrate the beautiful and creative. In sports, let’s celebrate the fastest, strongest athletes. In business, let’s celebrate the most innovative. In our families, friendships, and communities, let’s celebrate those who are most caring and kind. And in prestigious institutions of higher learning, let’s go ahead and celebrate those who have the best grades, strongest essays, and the highest test scores.
Any college that wants to place higher value on non-academic traits remains free to do so. What it should not be free to do is to require one academic standard for students of some races, and a different standard for others. This term, the Supreme Court has a great chance to rule that way.
Crossroads: “One Nation under God, with Liberty and Justice for All”
As you can see, Rita and her co-host Mark Meckler are plowing new ground for Crossroads as they explore the challenge that colleges face when they attempt to promote diversity but also, at the same time, to maintain fairness and equal standards for all in their admissions policies, and that we should rather strive to be “one Nation under God.”
Crossroads is entirely listener supported, and we are so grateful for your prayers, your encouragement, and your financial support. If you would like to help, please send your check to Crossroads at PO Box 881, Harrisonburg, 22803. All donations are tax-deductible.
Thank You, from Dean for Rita and the Crossroads Team.
Working and Walking Together, We Can Make a Difference, for God and Country!