Moments ago, on June 29, 2023, the Supreme Court outlawed racial discrimination in the name of achieving diversity in higher education. This practice, known popularly as affirmative action, has been a staple of higher education admissions for decades; the implications for the academy broadly and Cornell in particular are nothing short of monumental.
In the case, Chief Justice Roberts wrote a decision that was adopted by a 6 to 3 vote. Since Harvard is a private college and Justice Jackson recused herself from participating in that case, the Court also heard arguments on a case against the University of North Carolina. Both matters contended with the same subject: racial preference in college admissions.
In society, not everyone can have everything all at once. Some societal benefits are boundless, like the number of people who can enjoy an Atlantic Ocean beach. We have no need of arbitrary rules to limit who can use these resources.
Other benefits though, such as a seat in Cornell’s entering class, are very limited. Last year, Cornell’s acceptance rate dropped to an all-time low of 7.3%. Only one in thirteen applicants were accepted to the university. Thus, we need some way of deciding, at the margins, who gets in and who does not.
How did we get here?
Under the Supreme Court’s prior teaching, first articulated in Regents v. Bakke (1978), the benefits of “diversity” would allow race to be one of many factors that could be considered in picking the lucky few who get into Cornell.
This decades-old wisdom, first articulated in Bakke, then upheld by Grutter v. Bollinger in 2003, defended the “compelling interest in obtaining the educational benefits that flow from a diverse student body,” in the words of Justice Sandra Day O’Connor. In short, that the benefits of diversity outweighed the costs of discrimination.
This theory has been challenged for years. First, some schools have defined “diversity” to mean a racial balance reflecting the general population. This gave rise to discriminating against over-represented groups, which have historically been men, Jews, and Asian Americans in order to increase the number of women, blacks, and hispanics.
Second, in terms of improving the educational environment, promoting “viewpoint diversity” has more relevance than just increasing racial diversity. Whatever nebulous “benefits that flow from a diverse student body,” as O’Connor referred to them in 2003, are almost certainly better served by diversity of opinion, not just skin color.
The Court showed clear discomfort when they wrestled with the clear meaning of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment 25 years ago. The Court in Grutter v. Bollinger upheld the University of Michigan Law School admissions policy, which used racial preference; however, the justices noted:
The Court takes the Law School at its word that it would like nothing better than to find a race-neutral admissions formula and will terminate its use of racial preferences as soon as practicable. The Court expects that 25 years from now, the use of racial preferences will no longer be necessary to further the interest approved today.
That clock has run out. Society, and Cornell in particular, now have to decide how to allocate Cornell’s limited seats – this time without using racial prejudice.
Cornell sits at a crossroads
Times have changed. The Cornell, and indeed America, of 1978 and 2003 are not the Cornell and America of 2023. College students no longer see race in strict binary terms.
Cornell students now can claim grandparents from four different racial groups. Ten percent of Cornell undergraduates, 48% of graduate students and 59% of postdocs describe themselves as “multiracial.”
Student viewpoints no longer strictly correlate with race, religion, or ethnic factors, but willingness to self censor does. Hence, there may be better ways than racial discrimination to create viewpoint diversity on campus.
Is intellectual diversity dead at Cornell? Only if the ‘safetyists’ have their way.
Cornell, as the first modern American University, should play a leadership role in finding a new path. Every Cornellian should study the Supreme Court decisions and reflect on how we can make the United States a more perfect union while making Cornell a more just and effective institution.
Knee jerk reactions will not help, but rather thoughtful discussion and debate is needed. In fall 2022, President Pollack appointed a task force on admissions policy, which “is expected to deliver an interim report by the end of the spring semester and a final report no later than Aug. 31,” such that Cornell can create a new admissions system for next year. It’s time for Cornell to release the report; it’s time for campus dialogue – even virtually, if necessary.
Of course, many commentators reading the Supreme Court’s opinions can see implications far beyond college admissions. Civil Rights laws, such as 42 U.S.C. Section 1981, prohibit entities receiving federal aid (such as Cornell) from contracting in a racially discriminatory manner.
Similarly, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination in awarding benefits on the basis of race by federally-funded organizations, like Cornell. Also Title VII of that same law prohibits race-based employment decisions when Cornell is an employer.
Further, Cornell and hundreds of Cornell-related satellite organizations are charities under Section 501(c) of the Internal Revenue Code. As a condition of each organization’s tax-exempt status, racial discrimination is prohibited.
The Supreme Court’s new teachings on the meaning of race discrimination could reach all of those groups. Not only will Cornell’s admission task force have to rethink their policies, but the Cornell Black Alumni Association, among others, will have to re-examine their missions as well.
In many ways, the Supreme Court has done Cornell a great favor. It has shaken us from our complacency and challenged us to rethink Cornell’s policies from first principles. We should take advantage of the Court’s ruling to build a new Cornell that expands opportunity without discrimination.
Race has been a divisive issue on campus, and this nation, for far too long. Let’s seize the moment and unite as one university that focuses on excellence and merit.
