Race-Neutral Alternatives
George R. LaNoue of the University of Maryland, Baltimore County, and Kenneth L. Marcus of the CUNY Baruch College School of Public Affairs, released a 54-page paper titled, “‘Serious Consideration’ of Race-Neutral Alternatives in Higher Education.” (PDF)
Background: In 2003, the Supreme Court held 5-4 that the University of Michigan’s law school could continue discriminating against applicants based on race. Writing for the majority, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor contended that our Constitution “does not prohibit the law school’s narrowly tailored use of race in admissions decisions to further a compelling interest in obtaining the educational benefits that flow from a diverse student body” and declared that in 25 more years, we won’t need race preference admissions programs. The court also stated that schools should give “serious, good-faith consideration of workable race-neutral alternatives” before making decisions based on skin color.
Foreground: LaNoue and Marcus ask, “What does it mean for a college or university to ’seriously consider’ race-neutral alternatives?” and attempt to answer the question. The authors say the Supreme Court’s ruling mandates administrators to seek race-neutral alternatives, but that the ruling offers no clear guidelines on how to formulate and implement alternatives.
The authors point to developments in the law since Justice O’Connor’s retirement, citing the Parents Involved case, in which the court struck down a policy requiring government schools to assign students based on skin color in Jefferson County, Kentucky, and Seattle.
The authors also cited “informal guidance” by extrajudicial sources, i.e., the Clinton and Bush administrations. For example, Bush’s Department of Education issued a report post-Grutter v. Bollinger that describes race-neutral alternatives, such as socioeconomic, geographic diversity, and comprehensive review.
Colleges and universities may voluntarily give up race-based admissions policies, or the people may do it for them, as they did in California, Washington, Michigan, and Nebraska. Either way, preferences are on the way out whether led by the judiciary or the legislature.
