SCOTUS Staff Training Content

How to use this content:

Then to Now: A history of race-conscious admissions policies

Four decades of legal precedent: 

Bakke (1978)

In 1978, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the use of quotas for admission purposes was unconstitutional and struck down the University of California Davis’ Medical School admissions policy that provided a set-aside for underrepresented minority students.   At the same time, Justice Powell’s opinion opened the door to institutions being able to consider an applicant’s race as one factor among many to advance diversity interests. 

Grutter and Gratz (2003)

In 2003, the United States Supreme Court’s Grutter v. Bollinger and Gratz v. Bollinger decisions affirmed that the educational benefits of diversity could justify limited race- conscious admissions practices and, as a consequence, generated a renewed focus on both the means and ends associated with higher education’s diversity-related goals.  The Court upheld the University of Michigan’s law school policy but struck down it’s undergraduate admissions policy in these cases.

Fisher I and Fisher II (2013, 2016)

On June 23, 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court’s second decision in Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin upheld the University of Texas’s race-conscious admissions program under federal law following a decision that established new requirements regarding race-neutral practices. 

SFFA v. UNC/Harvard (2023)

On June 29, 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in the Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard/UNC cases regarding the universities’ consideration of an applicant’s racial status as one factor among many in undergraduate admissions to advance their interests in promoting the educational benefits of diversity for all students. In a consolidated opinion, the Court ruled that institutions could no longer consider racial status to advance the educational benefits of diversity as asserted by Harvard and UNC; but that universities could consider an applicant’s race-related experience, perspectives and goals in their holistic review processes.

The 2023 SCOTUS Ruling in a Nutshell

Not permitted: Racial status cannot be used to advantage or disadvantage a student in the college admissions process.

Permitted: Institutions have the authority to establish their mission including articulating and pursuing institutional diversity goals. Institutions may consider an applicant’s discussion of how race affected their life and shaped their individual qualities, characteristics, perspectives, and attributes.

Example: If a student was the leader of an African American group at their high school, that fact may be considered by an admissions officer, but for the leadership qualities it reflected, not for the fact that the student or the group was African American.

Additional Ruling Guidance and Insight

How does the ruling impact Native college applicants?

“As part of their holistic review, institutions may also continue to consider a wide range of factors that shape an applicant’s lived experiences. These factors include but are not limited to: financial means and broader socioeconomic status; whether the applicant lives in a city, suburb, or rural area; information about the applicant’s neighborhood and high school; whether the applicant is a citizen or member of a Tribal Nation; family background; parental education level; experiences of adversity, including discrimination; participation in service or community organizations; and whether the applicant speaks more than one language.” (Questions and Answers Regarding the Supreme Court's Decision [DOJ/DOE Resource])

Consider watching/listening to the following clips from the SCOTUS colloquia session at College Board’s Forum in November 2023. 

• 3:20–11:49 (Bottom line/myths about the ruling)
• 11:50–14:01(Advice for K–12 counselors about the ruling)
• 18:20–20:18 (Implications of the ruling on institutional goals and values)
• 20:21–22:11 (Implications of the ruling on recruitment and outreach)
• 22:12–25:39 (Marathon, not a sprint)

Reflection Questions

How is your institution communicating with and educating K–12 counselors about supporting their students in the admissions process in this new legal framework?

How do your institutional mission and values align with your admissions policies? Is there room for adjustment, given the ruling?

Are you shifting your recruitment and outreach efforts to expand your student pipeline at the top? If so, what strategies may work best for your institution?

What steps is your institution taking toward long-term strategic responses to the ruling? 

Resources to Inform Next Steps

Race and College Admissions: What’s Next? (March 2024)

This webinar explores how institutions can navigate the new legal landscape while operating within the confines of the law. Important questions remain at this pivotal juncture regarding emerging lessons learned and plans for ongoing public and student engagement, particularly concerning the release of new enrollment data. The webinar also offers reflections on emerging trend and implementation insights; strategy recommendations for public engagement in responding to 2024 enrollment data; and an overview of emerging second-generation legal issues and new cases on the horizon that will likely affect the evolving legal landscape of race and college admissions.

• Slide 8: Key issues in enrollment
• Slides 9–13: ADC SCOTUS survey results
• Slide 17: Core values and strategic framing
• Slide 19: Release of demographic data
• Slide 24: Race neutrality and the law

Race-Neutral Strategies in a Post-SCOTUS Environment (June 2024)

This webinar discusses the legal and enrollment policy landscape following the Supreme Court’s 2023 SFFA v. Harvard/UNC decision, with a focus on “race-neutral” policies that can advance institutional diversity, equity and inclusion interests.  This webinar also previews segments of the 3rd edition of The Playbook: Understanding the Role of Race Neutral Strategies in Advancing Higher Education Diversity Goals, to be released in fall 2024.  This resource will provide race-neutral strategies and “plays” higher education institutions can consider as they design and implement enrollment policies, focusing on recruitment, selection, and yield initiatives, as well as models of success.

• Slide 6: Implications for race-neutral practice
• Slide 9: Anti-DEI legislation
• Slides 10–12: Race neutral vs. race conscious 
• Slide 16: Policy development baselines
• Slide 18: Neutral strategies landscape

ADC Sponsor Examples

A selective private institution in the South 

This institution typically conducts training in October before reading files in November. Trainings are usually half days with check-in points throughout the year.

• The institution has a campus-based team, regional staff throughout the country and outside readers. The campus-based team and regional staff are expected to participate in on-campus training. While virtual training was productive, the institution felt it was better for staff—especially new staff members— to have hard conversations in person. 
• Zoom is used to train external readers, but the line of communication is always open. 
• The admissions office participates in the institution’s required (even for students) university-wide bias training. 

A public flagship institution in the Northeast

This institution conducts its main training in October with permanent staff and seasonal readers, enhanced by periodic touch points. Most training is virtual, with some in-person sessions. 

• During the 2023–2024 cycle, the school’s general counsel was invited to attend in-person training and implicit bias training. 

• The most sensitive topics are discussed in person to ensure staff feel comfortable processing the content. 

• Seasonal readers are required to attend the in-person sessions. 

• The institution has roughly 25 external readers. 

• Live virtual training is conducted via Microsoft Teams and the sessions, lasting typically 30 – 60 minutes, are recorded and shared with the staff. 

A selective private institution in the Midwest

This institution conducts their file training at the end of October into early November, holding 4–5 half day sessions. 

• They conduct pre-season training for new admission officers in August before they hit the road. 

• Legal counsel provides aggregate data on racial status to staff. 

• All training is held in person but it is recorded. Part-time reader training is exclusively virtual. 

• The team reads in pairs (a professional staff member with another professional or part-time reader) who read activities lists and additional contextual information. 

• The professional staff conducts academic evaluations, and a committee-based evaluation model is used.