Post-SCOTUS Staff Training Content

*Please note: Each institution will make their own decisions about the structure and content of their admission training. Institutions should always confer with their legal counsel to ensure they operate within the confines of the law.

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 race 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 race to advance the educational benefits of diversity as asserted by Harvard and UNC.

The 2023 SCOTUS Ruling in a Nutshell

• Racial status cannot be used to advantage or disadvantage a student in the college admissions process.
• Institutions have the authority to establish their mission, including articulating and pursuing institutional diversity goals. As stated in pages 39-40 in the ruling: "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. ... A benefit to a student who overcame racial discrimination, for example, must be tied to that student’s courage and determination. Or a benefit to a student whose heritage or culture motivated him or her to assume a leadership role or attain a particular goal must be tied to that student’s unique ability to contribute to the university. In other words, the student must be treated based on his or her experiences as an individual — not on the basis of race."

Collaborative Sponsor Examples

A selective private institution

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

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

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 race 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. 

You can find a collection of prior resources in the Case Analyses & Guidance Archive.