Who Should Get in? The Yellow Person or the Colored?

This week, the U.S. Supreme Court allowed the use of "race-neutral" admissions criteria to diversify the student body at an elite public high school in Virginia, declining to revisit the role race may play in admissions months after it sharply curtailed affirmative action programs at Harvard and the University of North Carolina. Confusing? A bit. Is it worth a deeper dive? I think so.

Thomas Jefferson High School for Science and Technology in Alexandria, Va., adopted what it said were race-neutral admissions standards. The school board did away with a rigorous entrance examination and prioritized admission to the top students from each public middle school in the area rather than the top applicants from any school. Admissions officers were instructed to consider "experience factors," such as whether students were poor, learning English, or attending a middle school that was "historically underrepresented." However, the officers were not told the race, sex, or name of any applicant.

A group of parents, many Asian American, objected to the plan and sued to stop it. After the changes were enacted in 2021, the percentage of Asian American students offered admission dropped to 54 percent from 73 percent. The rate of Black students grew to 8 percent from 2 percent; the percentage of Hispanic students grew to 11 percent from 3 percent; and the percentage of white students grew to 22 percent from 18 percent. For reference, in the Fairfax County School system, about 37 percent of students were white, 27 percent were Hispanic, 20 percent were Asian, and 10 percent were Black.

Sonja Starr, a law professor at the University of Chicago who was quoted in the NewYork Times closely followed the T.J. case, said: "It involved complicated legal questions that have yet to be answered over whether racial diversity could be a motivating factor in an admissions process."

The question before the court interests me because it shines a light on the defining question of our times: the individual's rights versus those of the "majority." In this context, "majority" can mean the political majority or the less formal majority of voices guiding public opinion. One side of the argument held that the new policies were discriminatory as they, in the words of Justice Alioto, "diminished their (Asian students) chances of admission while improving the chances of every other racial group." The other side holds that the school had a legitimate interest in "expanding the array of student backgrounds."

Both interests are legitimate. Which should take precedence? How do we (or, in this case, the Supreme Court) decide? The fact that the Supreme Court refused to hear the appeal tells us how complex these questions are. None of us want to live in a society where discrimination is rampant. We all want a society where achievement is rewarded, as it is a part of the American mythology. Yet, we prize the idea of equal opportunity, and it is increasingly evident that a healthy, functioning democracy requires active participation by all of us.

So, who gets an offer from Thomas Jefferson High School for Science and Technology? Claire Wong who has worked hard and achieved superior academic marks and high test scores? Or John Passmore, who has superior marks and test scores but is lower than Claire's? John has overcome other challenges that perhaps Claire has not faced, but should this be considered a factor?

Answering this question requires deciding on the purpose of our education system. Why do we educate? What do we seek as the outcome? I'm wrestling with this question.

Back to John and Claire. In my view, both are qualified to enter T.J. The role of the admissions committee is to decide on a pool of qualified applicants. The selection of applicants from that pool should be based on a clear policy that the community agrees with (not the educators, administrators, or Washington). There are several available, for example, proportional representation or based on an entrance exam. Failing that, a lottery among the qualified pool would be the most equitable basis for selection.

What we have now must appear to Claire and her family as discriminatory and unfair. Equally, John believes that he is more than qualified, given the challenges he has addressed. Which of them do we disillusion? Tough choice. I'm glad the Supreme Court clarified it......