Supreme Court Ruling, Race based admissions.

[EdgeTrimmer]

This quite literally is the most important thing. Which is also why i’m pushing for an end to legacy admissions because elite universities that favor the legacies by design allows those people to rack up extraordinary activities and be unique. Having affirmative action struck down but allowing legacy admissions to stay in place is a significant injustice

I have no legacy if you are implying that ☺️ I do support end to legacy admissions.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[EdgeTrimmer]

Unfortunately, race is a part of social status in America. Intersectionality is a thing. I can assure you there are many places where the low wage white person would be less discriminated against than the Black physician, and speaking from my own experiences being the only black kid growing up in my classes K-12, they didn't care how much money my mother made.

That’s why I was asking rural vs urban.

 

[john7991]

How should future applicants who need their background to help their application go about applying? Ideas on what we should we write? Someone mentioned the “impact essay?” Should we raise our clinical hours, volunteer hours, etc? I’m a URM/low SES and am reinventing myself with a very steep uptrend. What should people with similar circumstances as I do to increase their chances at getting into med school?

I know asking this might sound very strategic and maybe even pathetic to a few, but I’m not going to sit here, lie and say that some URMs, including me, weren’t already exploiting and heavily banking on their status to get into med school and it’s not that we think we’re not smart enough, it’s just that some of us messed up in the past in terms of grades and need whatever help we can get to get in.

 

[Mr.Smile12]

How should future applicants who need their background to help their application go about applying? Ideas on what we should we write? Someone mentioned the “impact essay?” Should we raise our clinical hours, volunteer hours, etc? I’m a URM/low SES and am reinventing myself with a very steep uptrend. What should people with similar circumstances as I do to increase their chances at getting into med school?

I know asking this might sound very strategic and maybe even pathetic to a few, but I’m not going to sit here, lie and say that some URMs, including me, weren’t already exploiting and heavily banking on their status to get into med school and it’s not that we think we’re not smart enough, it’s just that some of us messed up in the past in terms of grades and need whatever help we can get to get in.

We have posted (Other Impactful Essay advice short video). Please like and share.

 

[throwawayftw]

Hot button issue. Not going away soon.

I see more lawsuits in the future.

Agreed. The only certainty is more lawsuits about how schools use the personal statement essays.

I also foresee a lot of difficulty in determining family wealth / SES status. Currently, AMCAS asks about whether you received government assistance and Pell grants, which is a decent proxy for low family income. However, there are a variety of reasons why a needy family may never have received assistance. And it's tricky to distinguish between middle v upper middle class without looking at family tax returns. Then there's the obvious difference between income and wealth. Again, the shift to looking at SES and experienced discrimination instead of race alone opens up a whole different can of worms.

 

[EdgeTrimmer]

How should future applicants who need their background to help their application go about applying? Ideas on what we should we write? Someone mentioned the “impact essay?” Should we raise our clinical hours, volunteer hours, etc? I’m a URM/low SES and am reinventing myself with a very steep uptrend. What should people with similar circumstances as I do to increase their chances at getting into med school?

I know asking this might sound very strategic and maybe even pathetic to a few, but I’m not going to sit here, lie and say that some URMs, including me, weren’t already exploiting and heavily banking on their status to get into med school and it’s not that we think we’re not smart enough, it’s just that some of us messed up in the past in terms of grades and need whatever help we can get to get in.

Nothing wrong being strategic ☺️ you need to articulate well in the impact essays to be noticed.

 

[deleted1056062]

How should future applicants who need their background to help their application go about applying? Ideas on what we should we write? Someone mentioned the “impact essay?” Should we raise our clinical hours, volunteer hours, etc? I’m a URM/low SES and am reinventing myself with a very steep uptrend. What should people with similar circumstances as I do to increase their chances at getting into med school?

I know asking this might sound very strategic and maybe even pathetic to a few, but I’m not going to sit here, lie and say that some URMs, including me, weren’t already exploiting and heavily banking on their status to get into med school and it’s not that we think we’re not smart enough, it’s just that some of us messed up in the past in terms of grades and need whatever help we can get to get in.

Welcome to the club of everyone else who is low SES and who also messed up their grades early on and need to improve and re-invent themselves!

 

[MDMechEngr]

My thoughts as a CA “ORM” who will matriculate to a MD school, wrong decision.

Indeed. As a CA ORM who matriculated 3 years ago and who will be applying for a very competitive residency, you are in the minority.

 

[2024 or 5 ?]

This quite literally is the most important thing. Which is also why i’m pushing for an end to legacy admissions because elite universities that favor the legacies by design allows those people to rack up extraordinary activities and be unique. Having affirmative action struck down but allowing legacy admissions to stay in place is a significant injustice

It appears you are advocating discrimination because one's parents were doctors. That is so wrong. Of course the children of doctors will have an upper hand. They grew up understanding medicine and are highly qualified.

By this twisted logic, the children of farmers should not farm. NBA players children should not play basketball etc.

Now an unqualified legacy is a different story. Like the entire Kennedy family. Or the Bush family.

 

[johndooe9]

It appears you are advocating discrimination because one's parents were doctors. That is so wrong. Of course the children of doctors will have an upper hand. They grew up understanding medicine and are highly qualified.

By this twisted logic, the children of farmers should not farm. NBA players children should not play basketball etc.

Now an unqualified legacy is a different story. Like the entire Kennedy family. Or the Bush family.

I interpreted it more to mean a son of a Harvard graduate should not have an extra advantage simply because they are the son of a Harvard graduate. If they have done the necessary ECs, have high stats, etc., they can still be admitted to Harvard. But the fact that they are related to a Harvard graduate should have no bearing.

 

[candylover1729391]

It appears you are advocating discrimination because one's parents were doctors. That is so wrong. Of course the children of doctors will have an upper hand. They grew up understanding medicine and are highly qualified.

By this twisted logic, the children of farmers should not farm. NBA players children should not play basketball etc.

Now an unqualified legacy is a different story. Like the entire Kennedy family. Or the Bush family.

How is taking away legacy admissions discrimination? They should just remove the question about legacy just like they would remove the question about one’s race…

 

[chssoccer7]

I'm pretty sure you haven't read what he's saying or the intent behind what he's saying. The fact you are a legacy should have absolutely nothing to do with your application. It's purely a complete chance that your parents were physicians, you did nothing to earn it. It should have zero bearing on being accepted.

It appears you are advocating discrimination because one's parents were doctors. That is so wrong. Of course the children of doctors will have an upper hand. They grew up understanding medicine and are highly qualified.

By this twisted logic, the children of farmers should not farm. NBA players children should not play basketball etc.

Now an unqualified legacy is a different story. Like the entire Kennedy family. Or the Bush family.

 

[NewClassic]

Will be interesting to see the admission stats of 520+/4.0 ORMs applying to Howard.

 

[sugasathya]

If society needs to be more cordial, it needs a different socio-economic doctrine than just affirmative action. Affirmative action could fix only so much. We need strong AI, and our petty differences will become miniscule. Even without multi-modal AI, GPT4 was able to perform well in USMLE, AP calculus, Bar exam and software coding. Today there is hardly any human being who could tackle and answer so much of variety of problems. This is achieved even with small fraction of neural connections compared to our human brain. Imagine what will happen when we increase the silicon density and 3-D chip fabrication ? I think Strong AI is good for both integration of human society as well as tackling climate change. I respect human brain, but I acknowledge with its limitation in size, we are hitting the ceiling.

 

[EdgeTrimmer]

Will be interesting to see the admission stats of 520+/4.0 ORMs applying to Howard.

I doubt many apply

 

[MDMechEngr]

Will be interesting to see the admission stats of 520+/4.0 ORMs applying to Howard.

The likely scenario would be HMS now has doubled the number of applications due the ruling against AA. Few, if any, with those stats apply to Howard and yield protection is no joke.

 

[meowth85]

Will this decision even have effects right away? Because Conservative Justice Brett Kavanaugh said today’s ruling would apply first to those starting college in 2028. Unless I’m missing something…

That is my question too

 

[alwaysrunning]

Would a med school be able to be race blind through acceptance but then offer big scholarships to people that are URM?

 

[senecca]

I am not sure if you are simply an idiot or lack managerial skills/knowledge where you have to allocate limited resources (time, interviewers, funding, etc)

Well, then smart people at the school should explicitly say that those with 520+ shouldn’t apply. Why are they wasting applicants’ time?

 

[john7991]

Will this decision even have effects right away? Because Conservative Justice Brett Kavanaugh said today’s ruling would apply first to those starting college in 2028. Unless I’m missing something…

That is my question too

Anyone know the answer to this?

 

[senecca]

I doubt many apply

Why do you think so? Just curious.

 

[candylover1729391]

Anyone know the answer to this?

Apparently it’s class of 2028, not people entering college in 2028. So I’m assuming it will take place right away.

 

[senecca]

I think it's disengenious to pretend like the selection criteria for professional sports players merits the same considerations and societal implications as the selection criteria for physicians.

Sports is just an entertainment, no harm in lowering the bar. Lives are in the hands of physicians.

 

[Mr.Smile12]

For the record: Opinion | Now Is the Time to End Legacy Admissions, for @Lawpy .

 

[MDMechEngr]

Hot button issue. Not going away soon.

I see more lawsuits in the future.

The lawyers are sharpening their pencils and buying up air time. Radio commercials would sound something like "have you ever been denied admissions because of your race? if you think you have and even if you have no proof, please contact the law offices of Lawrence S. Parker, call sign AA-Crusher, at 867-5207 for an in-office free consultation. No payment necessary until we settle your case. My name is Lawrence S. Parker, and I will fight for you." LOL.

 

[MrPuff]

I can wholeheartedly recommend the law firm of Dewey, Cheetam, and Howe.

 

[Stoasty]

Sports is just an entertainment, no harm in lowering the bar. Lives are in the hands of physicians.

Well, yeah, exactly. There are numerous studies indicating that there are better patient outcomes for minority patients with physicians that match their status, hence why recruiting more minority physicians is seen as important.

The same isn't really true of sports. I'm not sure where you're going with this.

 

[SpicyHotSauce]

They should aim to remove pretty privileges next; my looks alone would cause schools to reject me!

mandatory /s

 

[MrPuff]

Well, yeah, exactly. There are numerous studies indicating that there are better patient outcomes for minority patients with physicians that match their status, hence why recruiting more minority physicians is seen as important.

The same isn't really true of sports. I'm not sure where you're going with this.

I'm pretty sure his point is more Asians should be in the NBA and more basketball players should be in med school.

 

[Mr.Smile12]

legacy doesn’t mean anything for med

I can affirm that LCME standards make it clear there needs to be appropriate processes and policies for managing legacy admissions. As far as I have had experience, no similar accreditation mandate exists for other graduate programs. On the other handd, legacy definitely can have meaning for how those appllicants get to the point of applying.

 

[Mr.Smile12]

Well, yeah, exactly. There are numerous studies indicating that there are better patient outcomes for minority patients with physicians that match their status, hence why recruiting more minority physicians is seen as important.

Just supporting: we also have a history of mistrust when marginalized patients have traumatic experiences when they have an insensitive health care provider (generally majority/privilege status) who is not culturally aware/sensitive/"woke" [buzzword alert]. During the days of chattel slavery, sick Black slaves had their health addressed often by veterinarians. Medical apartheid is current history to many. It's actually happening to this day (LGBTQ+ health inequities: Treating Trans Patients - HPSA).

 

[senecca]

Well, yeah, exactly. There are numerous studies indicating that there are better patient outcomes for minority patients with physicians that match their status, hence why recruiting more minority physicians is seen as important.

The same isn't really true of sports. I'm not sure where you're going with this.

I don’t know who conducted, funded the study and for what purpose. Those play critical roles in the final outcome of the study. I am a minority and my PCP is white and the specialist is Chinese but I never had any issue.

Let’s assume that the study was genuine. Then isn’t it only fair to extend the same courtesy to all patient groups? For example, can a White patient admitted in a hospital demand that only a white doctor can see him?

 

[Lawpy]

For the record: Opinion | Now Is the Time to End Legacy Admissions, for @Lawpy .

Pleased, now i’m waiting for another lawsuit to reach SCOTUS and strike down legacy admissions for good. There is a lot of fraud and unethical behavior happening at college admissions level that needs to be addressed, and legacy admissions is at the center of it

 

[Mr.Smile12]

Pleased, now i’m waiting for another lawsuit to reach SCOTUS and strike down legacy admissions for good. There is a lot of fraud and unethical behavior happening at college admissions level that needs to be addressed, and legacy admissions is at the center of it

We did have the Varsity Blues cases, but you'll need another boutique lawyer and the funding for 10 years of litigation in friendly jurisdictions to do it "the long way." This will have to come at the level of Board of Trustees/Overseers/Alumni and Donor Benefactors agreeing to give up this privilege, as it has at Anherst and MIT (which I don't think ever did legacy admissions IIRC). After all, many more schools have gone test-optional for undergrad admissions, so that's where student activists are probably going to lean on their administration on what to do, especially if the college is located in a state (like Florida) where state funding for DEI is likely to be heavily scrutinized and/or clawed back.

 

[Stoasty]

I don’t know who conducted, funded the study and for what purpose. Those play critical roles in the final outcome of the study. I am a minority and my PCP is white and the specialist is Chinese but I never had any issue.

Let’s assume that the study was genuine. Then isn’t it only fair to extend the same courtesy to all patient groups? For example, can a White patient admitted in a hospital demand that only a white doctor can see him?

That's great for you, but there are numerous patients who, for whatever reason, are more comfortable with a provider of their own ethnicity.

Yes, it would be fair to do that. However there's no shortage of white doctors, so that isn't a requirement that needs to be met by med schools. If there was a huge shortage of white doctors then yes it would be fair to make Caucassians a URM status.

 

[candylover1729391]

I don’t know who conducted, funded the study and for what purpose. Those play critical roles in the final outcome of the study. I am a minority and my PCP is white and the specialist is Chinese but I never had any issue.

Let’s assume that the study was genuine. Then isn’t it only fair to extend the same courtesy to all patient groups? For example, can a White patient admitted in a hospital demand that only a white doctor can see him?

Well, there have been white people that demanded to only see a white doctor. There was literally a video that went viral where a white women demanded to see only a white doctor for her child.

 

[Lifeblood_20]

I neither support nor disagree with affirmative action... but when I came to medical school and found out that there were literally only 10 (!) black students and ~15 Latinx students out of our 165-person class, I do think people are wayyyyy overexaggerating how much impact it is making currently on medical school admissions.

 

[Mr.Smile12]

... Should we raise our clinical hours, volunteer hours, etc? I’m a URM/low SES and am reinventing myself with a very steep uptrend. What should people with similar circumstances as I do to increase their chances at getting into med school?

I know asking this might sound very strategic and maybe even pathetic to a few, but I’m not going to sit here, lie and say that some URMs, including me, weren’t already exploiting and heavily banking on their status to get into med school and it’s not that we think we’re not smart enough, it’s just that some of us messed up in the past in terms of grades and need whatever help we can get to get in.

Revisiting so I can respond to the rest of the post.

In a study I published for a dental admissions pool, URM and majority (non-URM) cohorts had similar clinical hours and volunteering hours. SES and non-SES cohorts also had similar clinical and volunteering hours. The only difference that I noticed (though not statistically significant) was employment hours, which were higher for both URM and SES cohorts compared to non-URM, non-SES applicants. It makes sense a bit that SES and many URM applicants often had to be in positions where they had significant work prior to applying.

To extrapolate, you still need to do expected hours of clinical shadowing and non-clinical experiences regardless of stats as URM or SES to get a shot at an offer (for that applicant pool). That's why I say what I do when doing WAMC's.

 

[MrPuff]

I neither support nor disagree with affirmative action... but when I came to medical school and found out that there were literally only 10 (!) black students and ~15 Latinx students out of our 165-person class, I do think people are wayyyyy overexaggerating how much impact it is making currently on medical school admissions.

^This^ HMS matriculated 134 ORM and 38 URM students last year. URMs are 22% of the 2022 class. How many seats should the URMs give up?

 

[lolthroaway]

Lurker, but wanted to share a few thoughts/ramblings.

• *After a certain point*, GPA/MCAT aren’t the end all be all for determining who’ll be a successful medical student and physician. There’s too much that goes into it; work ethic, mental health, personality, different strengths in cognitive ability, etc. *On anecdote* I know of a black guy that had a 27 (507 by today’s standards?) on the old MCAT with a 3.9 GPA. Not the greatest applicant, but he got in, did well in classes, scored a 243ish on Step 1, and became orthopedic surgeon working with underserved black populations in Mississippi. Another black guy I knew, had a 23 on the MCAT (not sure of GPA). Not sure what he’s up to now, but last I knew, his performance was that of an average medical student at our State school. On the other end of the spectrum, two of my good friends are Asians who scored 34-36 on the MCAT and had 3.8+ GPAs. Both are doctors, but one failed step 1 and the other seemed to be an average student as well at a State school. Not saying grades/scores don't matter, but if you give me student A with a 3.5 GPA/507 MCAT and student B with a 4.0/523, I wouldn’t automatically say B will be the better student or doctor; I think both have good chances of success. Student A could have a better work ethic and a charming personality that catapults them to success in school and in their career…or they could struggle to pass. Student B could master the content easily, but they’re painfully awkward and lack awareness (I go to a T10 and see this a decent amount), and nobody would want them as a doctor. Or student B could just be the whole package (I see this as well at my school). Not to mention, “successful doctor” could mean something different to different schools. Student B could be hard working, magnetic, have 20 pubs and look like a future department chair for neurosurgery at Stanford. However, certain medical schools could look at them and go “meh.” They’re looking for someone that sticks around their metro area and treat all these dang black folk with HTN and diabetes. It sucks, but even amazing applicants may not fit the vibe of certain schools, so get that R. On a final note, I’m black with a 3.6 GPA/518 and my two Asian friends had more success with their applications (I got so many rejections haha).
• It can't be overstated how important it is to have diversity in medicine. I think it’s been document and stated on here that there is more trust and better outcomes when doctors share the same racial category. And speaking as a member of the black community, there’s a good reason for distrust. Not even getting into the bigotry of the past, there’s still the worry of implicit bias from doctors who aren’t overtly racist. I’ve had to take more charge of the health of family members because, right or wrong, I can’t help but wonder if race factors into the treatment they get. For example, I fixate on my diabetic parent’s creatine levels to make sure their kidney function isn’t being overestimated and I have to advocate for my significant other at appointments since providers have been dismissive in the past (similar stories from other black women in my life). Again, not sure if has ever been a factor in their treatment, but growing up black in America, race is always at least on the periphery due to the racism we often deal with. And in my limited interaction with patients, they seem more comfortable when I’m in the room (my school serves a large black population). And to be honest, part of me tends to see them as someone who could be my grandmother, uncle, cousin, etc. So, contrary to some commenters above, race is deeper than class in my opinion. I didn’t grow up impoverished or in the hood or whatever you want to call it, but my SES status has never been a barrier to my relationship/interactions with other black people regardless of their SES. However, friends have openly commented on their discomfort at being a minority among URMs, regardless of SES status. Which in a sense is fair, most people tend to associate with people of the same race. This is why having a racially diverse physician workforce is so important; most non-URM physicians aren’t going to be keen on setting up shop at predominantly URM neighborhoods or working with them (again, that’s fair). Not every URM medical student will either, but if I had to guess on who’s more likely to serve a predominantly Latino or Black area…
• I don’t think SES is a perfect proxy either because it ignores other factors. Yes, there are plenty of ORMs that grow up poor, and I don’t want to discount the fact that they must work their butt off to succeed, but I wonder what their neighborhoods are like. I have a family member in the lower end of SES and has many more hoops to jump through on their academic journey compared to peers who are “just middle class.” However, they have the good fortune of being in a zip code that’s predominately suburban/white with an excellent school district that will set them up for success in college. Had they gone to the predominantly black high school just 20 min away, they’d be screwed no matter how hard they worked. They’d have done well in high school, but the classes seem like a joke, and college courses would hit them like a truck (and the white and Asian students there are in the same boat). I don’t have the data with me, but that’s the situation a lot of black Americans are in. This is why so many black people in college and medical school tend to be African/Caribbean/immigrants (first or second gen) with higher SES. That’s a whole other issue, but even then, going to back to my first point, we just need black doctors. Many of my white/ORM peers are socially justice aware…but in a theoretical way. Based on their interactions with patients, I can’t help but wonder if some of them have had regular conversations with black people and I really don’t see any of them practicing in predominantly black underserved areas. However, almost all the black students, regardless of SES or immigration status, want to work in this capacity (though there aren’t that many of us).
• Affirmative action action was a VERY imperfect solution to a problem, but it was something. Even with it, URMs are still…underrepresented.

 

[lnlechy]

If you listen to court hearings/debates, Justice Roberts says that an essay dictating a journey in the US as a black person or any minority should be used since the information is about the individual, not the race in general.

Exactly! To discriminate based on race is unconstitutional. One of the reasons the Supreme Court has previously noted that it will need to end is that it has the potential to perpetuate stereotypes as progress is made on race equality (incluiding mixed race union, I would argue), because it would be incorrect to assume that race = socioeconomic status or inaccessibility of resources (which is the main argument in favor of affirmative action). Diversity of experience is still absolutely fair game, and in its decision the majority encouraged it. The good news is that diversity can mean many things - not only lower socioeconomic status, race or sexual orientation - antyhing that is an understanding of what (I would argue particularly marginalized) people and their communities are experiencing.

 

[Ms Procrastinator]

Personally, I'm not opposed to this ruling. A poor white or Asian applicant who overcame a lot should be given similar considerations as their black or Hispanic peers from similar backgrounds. A black/Hispanic student with double physician parents or >$400k income should not be given preferential treatment just to meet metrics to appear more diverse. All else being equal, that first group probably has more to offer to the class / their future colleagues, so I hope this ruling can help boost economic diversity within the medical field. Just my thoughts.

I thought the general consensus on here was that the advantages given to URM were not to benefit them, but the black/ Spanish speaking, Hispanic patient population. It's why URMs in human medicine have better luck with the application process than their peers in vet medicine.

This whole thing was because the powers that be (or whoever) wanted to improve patient outcome in those communities. Spanish speaking, Hispanic patients felt safer and less discriminated against when they had doctors who looked and spoke like them. They tended to be more honest with and trusting of those doctors.


Similarly, black patients tend to think that they are also discriminated against in the medical field with the high maternity mortality rate (compared to other races) constantly used as an example. Black people have a higher distrust of the medical system than other races because they were literally used as guinea pigs. It was thought that having people who looked like, and had the same experiences as them would improve their health care outcomes and make them trust the medical system more.

I thought this was put in place to combat systemic racism in medicine and improve patient outcome in certain patient populations. Also, your last sentence doesn't make any sense. The medical school application process is about finding out what prospective students can offer their patients and medicine, not themselves and their colleagues.

 

[EdgeTrimmer]

Why do you think so? Just curious.

Says Howard not Harvard

 

[Plut0]

I just spent the day reading all 237 pages of the new SFFA v. Harvard, and SFFA v. UNC decision from the Supreme Court released today. I hope this summary/Q&A could help contextualize discussions surrounding the new legal landscape of affirmative action particularly as it relates to medical school admission.

Disclaimer: I am not a legal professional and do not guarantee accuracy of my conclusions. The content provided herein is for informational purposes only and should not be considered as legal advice.
Conflict of interest statement: I am a "high stat" ORM applying this cycle that probably stand to benefit from the decision.

1. How did the Supreme Court rule in SFFA v. Harvard/UNC (hereinafter SFFA.) and how is the opinion different from the previous case of Grutter v. Bollinger? How will this affect medical school admission?

Grutter was a case decided in 2003 that allowed universities to take race into account in admissions, provided they satisfy a standard called "strict scrutiny," which is a series of requirements universities must meet in order to use race legally. While "strict scrutiny" is supposed to be very hard to meet, in practice it is was quite easy for universities practicing "holistic admission," and Harvard and UNC were both ruled to have admission programs that satisfy strict scrutiny by the district and circuit courts.

The Supreme Court today did not explicitly overturn Grutter, but they made the strictly scrutiny impossible to actually satisfy for any university, overturning Grutter in effect. In other words, racial classification is no longer legal in admissions.

2. Harvard and UNC are undergraduate institutions. Why do the ruling apply to medical schools (and all graduate/professional schools)?
The ruling applies to the 14th Amendment to the Constitution and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. All public institutions are bound by the Constitution, while private medical schools receive Federal funding and are thus bound by Title VI.

The text of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment reads:

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The text of Section 2000d, Title VI, Civil Rights Act of 1964 reads:

No person in the United States shall, on the ground of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.

Previous Supreme Court decisions have ruled that these two laws mean the same and a standard that applies to one also applies to the other.

3. Why don't the Supreme Court make legacy/donor/children of faculty/athlete admissions illegal?
The Supreme Court lacks the authority to do so since it can only interpret existing law, not create new ones. There are currently no laws that prohibit discrimination based on legacy/donor/children of faculty/athlete status. In contrast, Title VI and the 14th Amendment prohibit discrimination based on race.

4. Why is the ruling so long at 237 pages?
The ruling contains 6 separate opinions. Chief Justice Roberts delivered the opinion of the Court. Justices Thomas, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh wrote concurring opinions. Justices Sotomayer and Jackson wrote dissenting opinions. In addition to stating their own positions, opinions also includes rebuttals and comments on other opinions, which combined with the history and nuance of the case made it extremely long. Only the opinion of the Court, supported by a majority of 6 Justices, carries the force of law.

5. What does each opinion say?
It would be very difficult to include every point made, but in brief:
Chief Justice Robert's arguments are summarized above in 1.
Justice Thomas additionally argues that the decision is aligned with an originalist interpretation of the Constitution (Thomas is an originalist jurist), that racial classification inherently creates racial stigma, and that Affirmative Action may actual harm its intended beneficiary of Blacks and Hispanics.
Justice Gorsuch argues that it is not necessary for the decision to be a constitutional case about the 14th Amendment. Rather, Title VI should be considered separated from the Equal Protection Clause, and racial classifications be ruled illegal based on Title VI.
Justice Kavanaugh argues that the SFFA decision does not overturn precedents and is in fact in the spirit of Grutter's 25 year expiration limit.
Justice Sotomayer argues neither the Constitution nor Title VI are "race blind" or prohibit race conscious policies that have benign goals.
Justice Jackson argues that given the large gaps in various social outcomes between the different races, race conscious admission are still essential for society.

6. How will the rules actually affect admission policies?
Following today's decision, applicants who are rejected from selective programs in the 2023-2024 admission cycle would have the ability to sue the programs and allege unlawful racial discrimination. Schools will likely preemptively change their admission policies to comply with the new decision.

7. What does Chief Justice Roberts mean by "despite the dissent’s assertion to the contrary, universities may not simply establish through application essays or other means the regime we hold unlawful today"?
The exact extent of policies that this statement prohibits will probably be elucidated by the courts by some future cases. However, at a minimum, it would be illegal for a school to "guess" the race of an applicant by using proxies such as last names, zip codes, or participation in ethnic organizations and make admission decisions based on that.

8. Why are "race neutral alternatives," which featured heavily in Fisher and in the decisions of the lower courts, not extensively examined in SFFA? What are the implications?
Race neutral alternatives are policies whose purpose is to manipulate the distribution of the admitted races, but do so without explicit reference to race. For example, suppose the Pritzker School of Medicine at UChicago wants to increase the number of Blacks students, but it cannot do so directly. Instead, it starts a programs to recruit students who grew up from the South side of Chicago which is overwhelmingly Black. Pritzker can justify this publicly by saying it wants to contribute to its local community, which is a facially race neutral reason, but privately it created the program in order to increase Black representation on campus.

Race neutral alternatives are currently legal. However, it is facing legal challenges in multiple Federal Courts, including in Coalition for TJ v. Fairfax were a race neutral program by Thomas Jefferson High School was challenged for benefiting Blacks and Hispanics at the expense of Whites and Asians. The District Court ruled for the plaintiffs, but the Circuit Court reversed. This case, alone with several other similar cases, is very likely to reach the Supreme Court. The fact that the Supreme Court left the question of the legality of race neutral alternative open today may be in anticipation of a future ruling specific to this question. For more information on this topic, I highly recommend the paper The Magnet-School Wars and the Future of Colorblindness published in the Stanford Law Review.

If race neutral alternatives are ruled illegal, it would deal a crippling, cataclysmic blow to efforts to increase the number of Blacks and Hispanics and reduce the number of Asians and Whites at any educational institutions.

 

[Ms Procrastinator]

Personally, I'm not opposed to this ruling. A poor white or Asian applicant who overcame a lot should be given similar considerations as their black or Hispanic peers from similar backgrounds. A black/Hispanic student with double physician parents or >$400k income should not be given preferential treatment just to meet metrics to appear more diverse. All else being equal, that first group probably has more to offer to the class / their future colleagues, so I hope this ruling can help boost economic diversity within the medical field. Just my thoughts.

As you mentioned, all things considered equal, wouldn't it still be discrimination to choose one applicant over another solely because one was poor? No matter which way you swing it, applicants will not be judged 'equally'.

There are lots of poor ORM kids and URM kids with rich parents but on a whole, black and Hispanic populations tend to be of lower economic statuses than their white and Asian counterparts so how would reversing AA increase economic diversity?

Money doesn't make race problems go away so how are you so sure that Hispanic/ black applicants didn't also have to overcome a lot on their journey to medicine (and can therefore use those experiences to 'offer more' to their class and future colleagues)?

 

[senecca]

The exact extent of policies that this statement prohibits will probably be elucidated by the courts by some future cases. However, at a minimum, it would be illegal for a school to "guess" the race of an applicant by using proxies such as last names, zip codes, or participation in ethnic organizations and make admission decisions based on that.

This is interesting… but what happens when the applicants mention their race in their essays? The court should make this very clear. Because it is illegal for the universities to guess the race.

 

[Kameha01]

The admissions process sucks, but I remember seeing a post about how med school adcoms aren't just trying to recruit the best students, they're trying to recruit those who will most effectively help people.

A good student can effectively study and memorize, can apply concepts in a quick and meaningful way, knows how to utilize all resources available to them, etc. But a good doctor has to have all these AND more people-focused abilities.

In all of my clinical experiences, healthcare and medicine in general doesn't seem to be a STEM field, but a humanities field that has a lot of science in it, and, for better or for worse, the process will always be subjective and imperfect.

I do have one question though: How can the law possibly enforce this? Someone could look at my name and be like "Yeah that guy's most likely asian." Can't they just be like "we didn't really know their race because they never told us" even though it can be obvious? Also some schools ask for a picture, so how can the government possibly enforce this?

 

[Lawpy]

The Supreme Court lacks the authority to do so since it can only interpret existing law, not create new ones.

In theory yes but precedents from history say otherwise

 

[Plut0]

This is interesting… but what happens when the applicants mention their race in their essays? The court should make this very clear. Because it is illegal for the universities to guess the race.

Presumably the reader of essays who will be aware of the race of the applicant will not be part of the final decision committee, and can only communicate to the committee without mentioning race.

 

[deleted1166841]

This is interesting… but what happens when the applicants mention their race in their essays? The court should make this very clear. Because it is illegal for the universities to guess the race.

I believe the court ruled that if the applicant brings up race in the essay, it is fair game for the university to consider.

"Roberts also wrote that schools could still consider an applicant's discussion of how race affected his or her life, "be it through discrimination, inspiration, or otherwise.""

https://www.npr.org/2023/06/29/1176715957/why-the-supreme-court-decision-on-affirmative-action-matters