Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard

The Supreme Court took the case.

The plaintiffs say affirmative action is racial discrimination. 

Some Asian-American students who were rejected for admission had higher objective measurements of "merit" than those of Black and Hispanic students who were admitted.

It is unfair, the plaintiff said. It is also illegal.

Click: Washington Post overview

There is growing national consciousness of the difference between "equality" and "equity." 

Harvard is a well-known and useful brand. Able and ambitious people want the credential and the education it implies. Harvard gets federal money in grants, so is subject to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of race.

There is a school of thought about fairness: Equality. Treat everyone the same. Martin Luther King voiced it when he said he wanted his daughters to be judged by the quality of their character, not the color of their skin. Chief Justice John Roberts voiced skepticism of affirmative action based on race. He said that the way to stop adverse and prejudicial racial discrimination was to stop all racial identification and advantage. Discrimination perpetuates discrimination, he said.

There is another school of thought about fairness: Equity. Recognize that the playing field is not level. The metaphor might be the game of Monopoly. We don't start life with a blank board, everyone given an equal amount of money, then the dice shaken. People are born into a world with Atlantic Avenue, Boardwalk, the Railroads, and the Utilities all owned. Plus the rules perpetuate advantage. Each time the rich circle the board they get paid their $200; each time those without property circle they pay rents and utilities. 

Click: Futurity.org

If fairness is understood to evaluate present and potential game-playing skill, then that means leveling the playing field to get equity.  Powerful political forces work for people who have property to keep it and pass it on to heirs. Theoretically we assure every young person adequate nutrition, housing, health care, and education, so every player can compete. In practice, none of those things are equal.

It is a reasonable evaluation of inherent "merit" in playing the Monopoly game for a college gives "extra credit" to a person who overcomes disadvantage. When a 17-year-old pushes through disadvantages to get a 1500 SAT score, he or she may have more smarts, ambition, and overall moxie than a student who benefited from every opportunity and scores 1550. 

But that isn't Harvard's real situation. That argument obscures the reality, in my opinion. My observation from having interviewed approximately 40 Harvard applicants in the past five years is that nearly all of them are very highly qualified and would do well at Harvard or any other college. After accounting for foreign students and people admitted because of special considerations--e.g. recruited athletes, daughter of a president, a son of a tenured professor--then there are 25 or 30 applicants for every position. Nearly all of them have perfect resumes.

The differences between the various students are small, measured by objective criteria, and the goal is to admit people who can contribute to Harvard during their student years and who may profit from the education to  become leaders in a variety of fields. The score on a calculus exam probably measures knowledge and aptitude for calculus, and maybe, by extension, gives some insight into overall academic horsepower. People disagree on this. It misses the broader point that academic ability measured in a paper test is only one aspect of "ability." For example, the ability to articulate fluently and persuasively what one is thinking is an aspect of intellectual horsepower, and an enormously valuable life skill, but it is not well measured on paper. Nor is courage. Nor is the ability to sing.

An SAT or National Merit exam or any other objective measurement does not necessarily measure the talent and personality necessary to be a leading politician (Majority Leader Chuck Schumer), being the founder of a business that re-organizes the craft beer industry (Jim Koch; Sam Adams beer), the producer of hit TV shows (Frank Rich; Veep, Succession), someone who can lead the Office of Management and Budget back when the federal budget was in surplus (Frank Raines), or to become a Rock and Roll Hall of Famer (Bonnie Raitt.)  A lawsuit that assumes that Harvard's intent is to concentrate on identifying and training the next generation of tenured professors by filling the class with people presumed to be the top hundredth of one percent in test-taking misunderstands Harvard's intent. They want a more diverse student body than that, both for the benefit of the student experience and for Harvard's greater goal of educating the various leaders of the next generation in multiple fields.

In the decade ahead some people will be leaders for Black Americans and Hispanic Americans. Those people will almost certainly be Black and Hispanic. Those future leaders are entering college now. Harvard wants a shot at educating them. White and Asian students entering college now need to meet and know people from those backgrounds. There is a reason to admit an intentionally diverse class. Resourcefulness, leadership, courage, and ability to innovate show up in ways that do not measure easily.

There will be lots of commentary on this lawsuit and its implication for the issues of affirmative action and equity. The Court may disallow Harvard's current system of attempting to create a well-rounded class. The result will be colleges narrowing their basis for acceptances and the Monopoly game of American life will give even more advantage than it does now to the sons and daughters of the privileged. They test well. 

It won't be the stated intent, but it will be the result.