Most private schools use affirmative action to promote on-campus
diversity, but that practice could be altered by an upcoming
Supreme Court ruling.
The ruling on the University of Michigan’s admissions
policy will obviously affect public universities, but because
almost all private universities receive federal funds the high
court’s ruling would affect them as well.
“Private colleges are going to be held to the same
standard because they accept federal funds,” said Jon Fuller,
senior fellow for the national association of independent colleges
and universities.
If the justices ban all consideration of race in admissions,
then private universities would have to find other ways to promote
diversity.
In their admissions policies, most private universities describe
how they want a diverse student body to help enrich the learning
experience of everyone on campus.
“Part of putting together a good university is having a
student body that can learn from each other,” Fuller
said.
Last week, Stanford president John Hennessy reaffirmed his
support of using affirmative action to raise diversity in response
to the University of Michigan case.
“We remain committed to affirmative action, to the
importance of diversity broadly defined,” Hennessy said in a
statement.
At the same time, Stanford distanced itself from how Michigan
uses affirmative action, giving 20 points on a 150 point scale to
underrepresented minorities applying as undergraduates.
Affirmative action opponents refer to the points system as a
quota. The use of quotas in admissions was banned in University of
California Board of Regents v. Bakke in 1978.
But most private universities have fewer applicants and more
admissions officers so they do not need to use such a formula,
Fuller said.
The Supreme Court may rule that the Michigan points system is
unconstitutional without ruling on other ways of considering race
in admissions.
Most private colleges would not be legally affected in this
situation but could still be swayed by public opinion, making it
hard to use affirmative action in any form, Fuller said.
“Whatever the Supreme Court says, it’s going to have
a moral persuasion to it,” Fuller said.
The plaintiffs claim the points system is a violation of the
14th Amendment, which guarantees equal protection under the law for
all people regardless of race, ethnicity or creed.
The 14th Amendment applies only to the state and federal
governments and institutions, including public universities.
But Title VI of the 1965 Civil Rights Act makes the ruling
applicable to any entity ““ public or private ““ that
receives federal funds, Fuller said.
“Courts have always held that the same standard for
discrimination under the 14th Amendment applies under Title
VI,” Fuller said.
In California, public universities have been banned from
considering race in admissions since Proposition 209 went into
effect.
Because Proposition 209 is only a state law, it does not apply
to private universities like Stanford and USC.
This has allowed private universities to continue using
affirmative action to raise diversity. Public schools like UCLA do
not have this option, which sends many underrepresented students to
private schools.
“Proposition 209 was in many ways of great value to
Stanford, USC and Loyola,” said Laura Gomez, a UCLA law
professor specializing in Chicano studies and race relations.