The Supreme Court’s decision to gut affirmative action in higher education is a devastating blow to equitable and accessible education. As Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, the first Black woman to sit as a Supreme Court justice, wrote in her dissent, “deeming race irrelevant in law does not make it so in life.”

New York City’s public high schools have their own racial problem and we are missing an opportunity to help level the educational playing field here. NYC’s public specialized high schools are coveted as an equalizing springboard for success, but in reality, they are overwhelmingly segregated, thanks to the Specialized High School Admissions Test (SHSAT) being the sole admission factor.

Advertisement

It’s been five years since my last op-ed on the SHSAT causing racial disparities, and every year another report comes out on the devastatingly low number of African-American students admitted.

With the Supreme Court gutting affirmative action programs at colleges, it is more important now than ever to equalize our high schools. Standardized testing for undergraduate admissions was mostly considered benign and fair, but in reality, it was started back in the 1950s by intentionally designing tests that Black students could not pass to maintain segregation.

Advertisement

Prestigious universities began recognizing this bias, and started dropping requirements for the SAT and ACT, which drastically accelerated when COVID-19 upended testing. Now many have extended their policies post-pandemic, and aren’t likely to bring it back. In fact, more than 80% of U.S. four-year colleges aren’t requiring test scores. Higher education figured out that testing is not always an indicator of a student’s potential to achieve, but it often identifies bias and inequity that results in discrimination.

We saw heinous headlines about Stuyvesant High School, which admitted only seven Black students out of 762 new students. At this point, touting the low number of Black students admitted is just insulting when nothing substantial is done and there are proven models for change.

The SHSAT was enshrined into law via the Calandra-Hecht Act in 1971. Many critics at the time, including Mayor John Lindsay, believed the act was intended to halt efforts to desegregate top high schools in New York. The design of the test favors affluent students or students from socioeconomic backgrounds that can afford tutors and have resources for endless studying.

“This is Groundhog Day,” writes David Bloomfield, education professor at Brooklyn College and the CUNY Graduate Center. “I’ve been writing about this for years. The demographics don’t move because the system is made for a group of students who will be tutored for years before sitting for the test.”

The SHSAT doesn’t measure a student’s holistic intelligence; it measures their ability to pass one test. When I was in high school, I heard poorly-performing peers say they were grateful for the SHSAT because it overrides their poor grades. As a daughter of working class immigrants who became the first elected Haitian-American assemblymember from NYC, I owe much of my success to attending the elite Fiorello H. LaGuardia High School of Music & Art and Performing Arts.

LaGuardia High School is the only specialized high school that forgoes the SHSAT, with a performance audition, which attracts more culturally diverse applicants.

Although I was ranked third in my middle school, I still thought the SHSAT was too biased and I lacked support and tutoring. Had I not been admitted to LaGuardia, I may not have gotten into college and began my path to success. How many others like me have slipped through the cracks?

At the most elite universities and colleges, the admission tests have not vanished, and perfect scores on the ACT and the SAT retain power. But they aren’t the only data point, nor required.

Advertisement

“Students who do not submit standardized test scores will not be disadvantaged in their application process,” Harvard said in explaining its decision. “...[applicants] are encouraged to send whatever materials they believe would convey their accomplishments in secondary school and their promise for the future.”

The SHSAT similarly should not be the single requirement for admission.

I propose getting rid of the current test, and creating a new assessment related to academics learned in the school system that counts as 20% of the applicant evaluation. Decisions can also be based on a student’s grades, a personal statement, extracurricular activities, interviews and recommendation letters. I also agree with former Mayor de Blasio’s methodology in allowing the top percentage students of every school to have a seat in the specialized schools.

It’s time to rewrite the laws in NYC and change the paradigm to end segregation in high schools.

Bichotte Hermelyn is the Assembly majority whip and chair of the Brooklyn Democratic Party.

Educational opportunity for minority students is once again under attack, this time from the Supreme Court. Their decision eliminating affirmative action in college admissions is a tragic but predictable event — the American education system has rarely worked in our favor.

As Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote in her dissenting opinion, “This contention blinks both history and reality in ways too numerous to count. But the response is simple: Our country has never been colorblind.”

Advertisement

Many fear that the elimination of race-conscious college admission practices will exacerbate educational inequalities and widen the societal gaps that exist in our culturally diverse communities.

Jackson went on to further state, “Gulf-sized race-based gaps exist with respect to the health, wealth, and well-being of American citizens.”

Advertisement

Jackson is right.

Educational attainment plays a crucial role in determining socioeconomic status and health outcomes, as it directly influences an individual’s ability to shape and Excellerate their own life. However, for most of our history, both the government and the traditional public education system have actively worked to inhibit and outright exclude people of color from a quality education. Affirmative action, while not perfect, was an acknowledgement of this injustice and served as a critical tool to close those gaps.

While the Supreme Court ruling is a tragedy it must be a thunderous call to action. We must demand and create a system that provides an excellent educational foundation to traditionally underserved communities, including Latinx and Black students. We must demand a system that prioritizes the success of our children — our future. And we must demand the self-determination and representation that are vital to achieving equity in education.

It’s not only a matter of educational sustenance at stake, but we’re talking about the growth of society and the broadening of racial harmony. As Thurgood Marshall once argued, “Unless our children begin to learn together, there is little hope that our people will ever learn to live together.”

The traditional public schools system has continued to fall short when it comes to students of color. Especially in light of the pandemic, leaving our students even further behind. We need a system that works for us.

And we know what works.

Locally-run charter schools, led by people of color, have emerged as a beacon of hope — a powerful vehicle to address the inequities that continue to plague our educational landscape. They provide an opportunity for communities to take charge of their children’s education, to shape curricula that reflect their unique histories and cultures, and to foster environments that empower students to succeed.

Public charter schools allow for the autonomy and flexibility required to meet the unique academic needs of their community. A recent study by Stanford’s Center for Research on Education Outcomes (CREDO) shows that charter school students are outpacing their peers in traditional public schools in both math and reading. Furthermore, research shows that culturally-affirming schools where leadership and teachers reflect the communities they serve have positive, tangible outcomes including decreased dropout rates and a significant boost in college enrollment.

Advertisement

Given these facts, our partners in Albany — particularly in the Legislature — should be helping charter schools to expand, pushing for their growth and requiring equity. It is outrageous that we continue to face such opposition, all the more so because that opposition is often fueled by Democrats. How can you profess to stand for social and economic equity, yet not stand with public charter schools?

At Black Latinx Asian Charter Collaborative (BLACC) our motto is “education for us, by us” and we embed this belief in every aspect of our work, from whom we serve to what we advocate for. Our members are New York public charter school educators of color. We believe deeply in centering communities of color so that the families we serve can exercise self-determination in education, choosing what is best for their children.

We believe in the potential of the public charter school model, and we know that in order to fully catalyze its power, we need to move the needle on increasing the number of public charter schools led and staffed by people of color.

With this Supreme Court decision, the clarion call must be racketed up. We must all fight to ensure higher-education leaders build student bodies that are reflective of our communities. We must increase our efforts to ensure black and brown students are ready for higher-education by receiving a quality K-12 education.

I assure you that BLACC will continue to be at the forefront of the fight for equity in education.

Raccah is the CEO of the Black Latinx Asian Charter Collaborative.

© 2023 Benzinga.com. Benzinga does not provide investment advice. All rights reserved.

Secretary of Education Miguel A. Cardona said Wednesday that the U.S. Supreme Court decision ruling against affirmative action in higher education will be a challenge to leaders at all levels of education similar to that of the COVID-19 pandemic, requiring boldness and collaboration to help maintain student body diversity.

“We come together today at a turning point in higher education, perhaps in all of education,” Cardona said at a National Summit on Equal Opportunity in Higher Education at the Department of Education’s headquarters in Washington. “We didn’t ask for this moment, but as leaders, we must answer it.”

The secretary spoke passionately to hundreds of educational leaders, including some from K-12 education, about the U.S. Supreme Court’s June 29 decision in Students for Fair Admissions v. President and Fellows of Harvard College, which struck down race conscious admissions policies at Harvard and the University of North Carolina.

“For many of us, the Supreme Court’s decision on affirmative action feels like a new low point,” Cardona said. “It’s going to take the same kind of bold leadership and collaboration at every level of education we saw during the pandemic to address the fallout of this deeply disappointing ruling.”

Cardona, a former teacher, principal, and state superintendent in Connecticut, said, “I can’t help but view this dilemma with a K-12 lens.”

While “our colleges have lost the most effective tool they’ve ever had for building diverse campus communities,” he said, “our K-12 schools, which are the pipeline for future higher education students, continue to wrestle with longstanding inequities laid bare by the pandemic.”

Federal officials say ‘resource document’ on decision is coming

The daylong conference, which included remarks by other Biden administration officials and panel discussions of educational leaders, was relatively light on legal advice for what colleges and universities may still do for racial diversity in the wake of the decision.

In a joint appearance at the conference, Catherine E. Lhamon, the Education Department’s assistant secretary for civil rights, and Kristen Clarke, the assistant attorney general for civil rights in the U.S. Department of Justice, said the administration was preparing a “resource document” on lawful admissions practices that would likely be released next month.

“The court’s decision, as we know, sharply limited a tool that colleges and universities with selective admissions policies had used to create diverse campus communities,” Lhamon said. “The court did not question the educational value of diverse student bodies.”

“Even after the decision, lawful avenues remain open to colleges and universities to pursue diverse classes,” Lhamon added, referring, for example, to Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr.’s language in his majority opinion that “nothing in this opinion should be construed as prohibiting universities from considering an applicant’s discussion of how race affected his or her life, be it through discrimination, inspiration, or otherwise.”

(Roberts emphasized that a college admissions decision based on such a discussion must be tied to that individual student’s experience.)

Lhamon said she has heard about groups contacting schools with their interpretations of the Supreme Court decision. One such letter has gone out from Students for Fair Admissions to 150 colleges, warning them against using student essays or other workarounds to continue to make race-conscious admissions decisions.

“I have heard about groups who are not the Department of Education or the Department of Justice who are sending schools notifications about what they say the law is and what they want you to do,” Lhamon said. “I will offer you this. You will know when you hear from us.”

Touching on legacy admissions and DEI

Neither Cardona nor Lhamon specifically mentioned the news this week that the Education Department’s office for civil rights had opened an inquiry into legacy admissions at Harvard. The investigation is a response to a complaint from a Boston-based civil rights group that argues that admissions preferences for children of alumni tend to favor white applicants from wealthy families.

But Cardona and Clarke each addressed the issue more generally.

“This may be time [for universities] to confirm that all admissions preferences and policies directly relate to an applicant’s individual merit or potential and ensure that existing metrics or criteria do not increase inequality or disparities,” Clarke said.

Cardona asked the participants whether “admission policies that benefit the wealthy and well-connected reflect your values?”

“Look, I have nothing against the legacy student who did really well at an elite private school,” he added. “But I am in awe of the straight-A student from a Title I school who spent hours on a bus every week to take an AP class that wasn’t offered at her school and still found time to contribute to her community, all while having to take care of siblings at home.”

Cardona said some state and local leaders were “overreacting” to the Supreme Court decision by arguing that it outlaws all diversity, education, and inclusion efforts in school districts, higher education institutions, and other entities.

“We have politicians trying to turn diversity, equity, and inclusion into bad words, as if the alternatives—racial inequity and exclusion—were the good ones,” Cardona said. “Now is not the time to ignore the reality of ongoing racial inequality. Now is not the time to abandon our support for students of color.”

Copyright 2023 Scripps Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

The federal government released long-awaited resources for colleges this morning on the implications of the Supreme Court’s decision striking down affirmative action, offering legal guidance on a number of questions that have been the subject of interpretive debate since the June 29 ruling.

The Departments of Education and Justice, which released the guidance together, encouraged colleges to thoroughly review and update their admissions policies to ensure compliance with the Supreme Court’s finding that considering race as a factor “in and of itself” was illegal.

But they also stressed what many legal experts have pointed out since the decision was handed down: that considerations of how an applicant’s race has affected their individual experience could still be considered when making admissions decisions, and that the court did not deny the value of diverse student experiences on campus.

“Although this decision changes the landscape for admissions in higher education, it should not be used as an excuse to turn away from long-standing efforts to make those institutions more inclusive,” associate attorney general Vanita Gupta said at a news conference this morning. “Race can be relevant to a person’s life or a lived experience, and may impact one

Many colleges have indicated they will look to application essays as a place where applicants can talk about how race has affected their lives. Some have added or revised essay prompts in direct response to the Supreme Court decision.

Education Secretary Miguel Cardona said the Biden administration was “working relentlessly” to support legal diversity efforts.

“We know what has happened at colleges when individual states banned affirmative action in the past: fewer students of color applied, and fewer students of color were admitted,” he said. “We cannot afford that kind of backsliding on a national scale.”

On June 29, the day the ruling was handed down, the Biden administration promised guidance in 45 days. The guidance actually came 47 days later, after more than a month of anxious anticipation and apparent frustration from higher ed leaders.

A more thorough list of recommendations, including guidance on how to use measures of adversity in admissions to cultivate a diverse student body, will come in September.

Advice Beyond the Application

Beyond admissions, the departments’ guidance says colleges can still legally work to diversify their student bodies through targeted recruitment efforts, including using race, and by redoubling retention efforts aimed at supporting students of color once they arrive on campus. Officials also said that bridge and pathway programs for high schoolers aimed at diversifying applicant pools are still legal, a view many questioned in the ruling’s immediate aftermath.

“The Court’s decision does not require institutions to ignore race when identifying prospective students for outreach and recruitment, provided that their outreach and recruitment programs do not provide targeted groups of prospective students preference in the admissions process,” according to a question and answer document issued as part of the resources.

However, the departments clarified that any program that used race as a prerequisite for applying or awarded slots based on a student’s race “risked triggering the strict scrutiny” standard applied in the affirmative action ruling.

The departments also clarified that the Supreme Court ruling did not make it illegal for institutions to collect demographic data on applicants, nor did it prohibit admissions officers from looking at that data—as long as they did not consider it when making admissions decisions. They encouraged institutions to take measures to ensure that didn’t happen, noting the court’s criticism of colleges “adjusting their admissions priorities dynamically in response to demographic data.”

Colleges will have to decide whether to take that risk themselves. Anticipating the result of the Supreme Court decision, the Common App introduced a new feature in May allowing institutions to toggle an option that hides an applicant’s racial identity from admissions officers.

The guidance took up the question of diversity, equity and inclusion offices, student affinity groups and cultural resource centers—which some conservative legal activists have argued are fatally undermined by the Supreme Court decision.

“A core philosophy advanced by campus Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion ideology has been rejected as unlawful,” Cornell law professor William Jacobson wrote in an email to Inside Higher Ed last week. “Those in higher education who try to pigeonhole the ruling into university admissions are missing the sweep and scope of the equal protection ruling.”

The Biden administration pushed back on that reading. Highlighting the importance of improving retention for underrepresented students, officials said that belonging and retention resources directed at minority students fell within the law, as long as the resources are “available to all students regardless of race.”

“It is important that students—particularly those who are underrepresented—feel a sense of belonging and support once on campus,” the question and answer form reads.

‘The Elephant in the Room’

Colleges and universities have been awaiting federal guidance on the scope of the ruling and the legality of certain practices outside admissions for weeks. Some institutions, including Western Illinois University and the University of Kentucky, have gestured toward policy changes outside of admissions but cited the lack of federal guidance as reason to wait.

Guidance on some of these areas of concern was conspicuously absent.

There is no mention of how the Supreme Court decision might apply to hiring, which Students for Fair Admissions president Edward Blum has said is affected. Neither is there reference to its impact on race-conscious scholarships, which Missouri attorney general Andrew Bailey ordered colleges to eliminate in the wake of the ruling, and which have raised concerns at many institutions unsure how far the ruling extends.

A senior education department official said the Supreme Court decision didn’t address scholarships, and the department’s resources are based solely on the purview of the decision.

“We think that we are staying in the realm of what the court decided which is focused on admissions in selective colleges and universities,” the official said. “We are offering states and colleges and universities clarity about what remains lawful and what tools are still available.”

Blum was unable to respond to requests for comment in time for publication.

James Murphy, deputy director of higher education policy at Education Reform Now, said that even if the Biden administration does not believe scholarships should be affected, failing to mention them at all is an oversight—especially when state officials like Bailey and Wisconsin Assembly speaker Robin Vos have publicly espoused their own contradictory interpretations of the ruling.

“I’m really glad to see the Department issue some guidance on how colleges should be interpreting the SFFA decisions. But it feels like there’s a big elephant in the room that they’re not talking about, and that’s financial aid,” he said. “Leaving that in limbo will just make for a really chaotic situation.”

Officials also declined to announce any specific action to accompany the guidance, which Murphy said was odd considering the quick and substantive federal action taken after other Supreme Court decisions, like student debt relief and abortion rights. He said he hopes such action is forthcoming.

“The Biden administration has been bold in many ways: they acted in response to the Dobbs decision, and got creative in figuring out how to protect women’s rights. They got creative and active in trying to protect students when it comes to student loan debt,” he said. “I’d love to see some more of that action and creativity on this front as well.”