Supreme Court affirmative action case showed ‘astonishing’ racial gaps

Underpinning the Supreme Court’s landmark Thursday decision striking down affirmative action in college admissions was stunning data highlighting the vast racial disparities in qualified and admitted applicants to both Harvard University and the University of North Carolina.

Both institutions had markedly lower acceptance rates for Asian and white applicants than black and Hispanic candidates who fell into the same academic decile.

This was highlighted in a brief filed by Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA), the plaintiffs in the case.

Here is a look at some of the key data points.

Harvard

At Harvard, an Asian candidate in the eighth highest academic decile had 5.1% chance of admittance, compared to 7.5% for white, 22.9% for Hispanic, and 44.5% for black applicants, per the brief.

SFFA cited Harvard’s own data and emphasized that the Ivy League institution managed to admit a remarkably similar proportion of people from each race over the decade that preceded the lawsuit.

“Harvard’s expert also testified that race gives the African-American and Hispanic applicants who have a real shot at getting into Harvard a ‘big increase in the probability of admission,’” the brief noted.

To achieve its racial objectives, SFFA alleged that Harvard used a special ratings system that adversely affected Asian applicants.

The “personal rating” is one of four “profile” scores Harvard assigned applicants, along with academic, extracurricular, and athletic.

Until 2018, Harvard University leaned on a scoring metric of 1 to 6 for its “personal rating” system, with “1” being “outstanding” and “6” denoting “worrisome personal qualities,” according to the briefing.

Asian applicants consistently performed the worst on Harvard’s “personal rating” system relative to other races, while black and Hispanic applicants generally performed better.

For example, only 17.93% of Asian applicants in the top eighth academic decile earned a “1” or a “2” on the personality rating, compared to 26.1% of white applicants, 32.2% of Hispanic applicants, and 39.57% of black applicants, according to data in the brief.

“Year after year, Harvard’s personal ratings reflect a clear racial hierarchy, where African Americans receive the best personal ratings, followed by Hispanics, followed by whites, with Asian Americans in last place,” the brief argued.

“Harvard has never been willing to say that Asian American applicants deserve lower personal scores— that this group is actually less likely to exhibit ‘leadership,’ ‘self-confidence,’ ‘likeability,’ or ‘kindness.,’” the brief said. “It repeatedly disavowed that.”

University of North Carolina

A similar pattern of racial disparities in candidate qualifications was flagged at UNC as well.

An expert testified that test scores and GPAs “had widely different admission rates by race.” This was further buttressed in admission data for out of state candidates.

Among out of state candidates in the eighth highest academic decile, for instance, Asian applicants had a 15.51% admission rate, compared to 15.87% for whites, 33.63% for Hispanics, and 57.87% for black candidates, per the brief.

Petitioners also cited a race neutral simulation which doled out “750 seats in the class for high-scoring, socioeconomically disadvantaged applicants,” while the remainder of the class would be selected on the basis of academics.

That projection increased socioecominic diversity and the share of white and Hispanic applicants, while also decreasing the quantity of Asian and black applicants.

That result hewed closely to UNC’s current composition.

Multiple simulations were developed to study UNC’s admissions, but an expert was unable to find any race-neutral method of achieving UNC’s exact racial makeup, according to the brief.

In tandem with the data cited, the petitioners also dug up online chats from admissions officers, in which they occasionally opined on an applicant’s race.

“Perfect 2400 SAT All 5 on AP one B in 11th,” an unidentified person wrote.

“Brown?!,” a second unidentified person replied.

“Heck no. Asian,” the original person shot back.

“Of course. Still impressive,” the second persons said.

In a different exchange, an unnamed school official flagrantly instructed someone to move a minority candidate to a scholarship section if their SAT score was above 1300.

“If its brown and above a 1300 [SAT] put them in for [the] merit/Excel [scholarship]”

Supreme Court ruling

Ultimately, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs and struck down the affirmative action programs at Harvard University and UNC.

In doing so, the high court overruled precedent set in Grutter v. Bollinger, a 2003 case that upheld the right of higher education institutions to consider race as a factor in application processes.

SFFA had argued that rather than diminishing the role of affirmative action, the Grutter ruling had enabled bad behavior by those institutions.

“Grutter’s version of narrow tailoring does not meaningfully limit universities’ use of race. It encourages universities to ‘resort to camouflage’ to use ‘winks, nods, and disguises’ instead of explicit racial quotas,” the brief said.

Supporters of the universities argued that affirmative action was critical to uplifting up marginalized communities and that banning the practice is a bridge too far.

“Affirmative action was never a complete answer in the drive towards a more just society,” former President Barack Obama said in a statement.

“But for generations of students who had been systematically excluded from most of America’s key institutions—it gave us the chance to show we more than deserved a seat at the table.”