By Dr.Tara Kent, Director, Office of the Registrar, AMDA New York Campus
"Field Notes" is a regular Connect column covering practical and philosophical issues facing admissions and registrar professionals. The columns are authored by various AACRAO members. If you have an idea for a column and would like to contribute, please send an email to the editor at communications@aacrao.org.
When it comes to the intersection of politics and higher education, individuals' allegiances may align with political parties depending on what they perceive as most beneficial for their institution and the students they serve. For instance, consider the reaction of those who work at career colleges whose graduates earn certificates rather than a bachelor's degree after they had a chance to digest the Biden administration's final ruling on the gainful employment guidelines and the associated metrics, which carry the potential consequence of financial aid removal from institutions that do not meet the new requirements. In response to these developments, the administrators at these career colleges take a sharp turn towards the right on the political spectrum. Conversely, those working for institutions that serve a substantial population of underserved students may veer left should the Executive Branch advocate for an increase in the Pell Grant. Irrespective of one's stance on Affirmative Action, the entire landscape of higher education now finds itself at the crossroads of the SCOTUS decision. Here, they are poised to be overtaken by the Committee on Education and Workforce, which is accelerating at full speed to analyze data and craft legislation designed to uphold the court's ruling.
The Hearing
On September 28, 2023, Chairman Burgess Owens (R-UT) presided over a hearing titled "The Impact of SCOTUS's Decision on Race-Based Admissions on University Policies." Unless one has been entirely disconnected from recent events, it is evident that the Supreme Court's ruling on Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard and Students for Fair Admissions v. UNC, declaring race-based admissions unconstitutional and in violation of the Constitution and Civil Rights Act has sent shockwaves throughout admissions offices. This ruling has compelled institutions to reevaluate their approaches to student admissions. The Committee featured four witnesses for testimony, none of whom were administrators from higher education. Paradoxically, the hearing raised more questions than it answered regarding the recommendations put forth by the witnesses and the guidance that colleges and universities can expect to receive to align with the ruling.
Witness Testimonies
The first witness, Ms. Alison Somin, a Legal Fellow with the Pacific Legal Foundation (PLF), emphasized three points in her testimony. She underscored the importance of admitting applicants based on their individual merit rather than considering race as a factor. She stressed the need to prevent colleges and state governments from disregarding the established rulings, advocating for ongoing litigation with support from non-profit organizations like PLF to hold institutions and state governments accountable to these rulings. She also recommended the elimination of proxies and called on the Department of Education to provide clear guidelines to ensure that institutions understand their obligations under these rulings.
The second witness, Mr. Yukong Mike Zhao, Founding President of the Asian American Coalition for Education, also voiced concerns about proxies and the lack of guidance from the Department of Education. He suggested that admissions offices prioritize applicants based on the needs of their programs. He proposed that standardized testing should play a major role in college admissions and recommended that applicants withhold their demographic and identifying information from admissions advisors.
The third witness, Mr. David Hinojosa, Director of the Education Opportunities Project at the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, took a different stance by expressing support for Affirmative Action. He reminded Congress of its commitment to 'unity, opportunity, and justice for all' and urged them to increase the amount and expand the eligibility of the Pell Grant. He called for an investigation into legacy admissions and the dismantling of systemic barriers. He advocated for grant funding to analyze and implement race-neutral programs aimed at advancing equitable opportunities and the elimination of standardized tests.
The final witness, Mr. Delano Squires, a Research Fellow at the Richard and Helen DeVos Center for Life, Religion, and Family at the Heritage Foundation, centered his recommendations on K-12 education preparation. He endorsed greater education choices, such as educational savings accounts, pathways to challenge gifted students, offering external specialized programs to gifted students, and implementing changes in policies and family structures to promote stable marriages.
More Questions
After traversing the path of 'Witness Testimony,' one may find themselves inundated with questions, a list seemingly more extended than the cross-country journey from Seattle to Boston on I-90, which takes approximately six days. Two of these inquiries loom large: What is next, and how will any of these recommendations translate into actionable legislation? One proposal, for instance, to reinstate standardized testing in all schools, could bring unprecedented lawsuits like the 2020 case against the University of California.
Additionally, admitting applicants as individuals, as one of the witnesses suggested, would need to be clearly defined, as there could be confusion if there is a requirement for applicants to conceal their name and demographics, which essentially removes the applicants' individuality, causing them to appear as bots to admissions advisors. Furthermore, the assumption that one's name or demographic information inherently signifies one's race represents a form of bias. This hearing casts a shadow of uncertainty over how the SCOTUS decision is shaping admissions policies and hinted at the possibility of biased recommendations becoming woven into the fabric of future legislation governing college admissions.
Conclusion
Admissions advisors need clear, practical, and measurable criteria for student admissions. Although research underscores the positive influence of family support on academic success, it would be excessively optimistic to believe that Congress could universally instill these values in all families, thereby creating a level playing field for those seeking admission to elite universities, all without compromising civil rights.
The path ahead is fraught with uncertainty as we await the Committee's drafting of legislation. While uncertainty lingers about the decision's aftermath and its admissions impact, Chairman Owens was specific when he issued a stern warning to educational institutions in his statement: "So, to those at institutions who think the Supreme Court ruling is a 'pretty please' ask, this Committee will keep a close eye as the 2024 application process unfolds. Racism, hidden or overt, will not be tolerated by this oversight body."