As the leading voice for the college admission counseling profession, NACAC joined with three other organizations to inform U.S. Supreme Court arguments in two cases it will hear this fall on race-conscious admission practices: Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President & Fellows of Harvard College and Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. University of North Carolina. By filing an amicus brief alongside the College Board, ACT, and the American Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers (AACRAO), NACAC articulates a powerful message of unified concern for the future of holistic admission practices. The decision to file a brief with the Supreme Court also aligns with NACAC’s transformed approach to advocacy—one that allocates resources toward influencing high-impact policies.
NACAC’s brief stresses the importance of continuing to allow admission professionals to fully consider all factors regarding applicants’ accomplishments, aspirations, and promise, including the role race has played in their selfidentity and lived experience. An important objective of the brief is to ensure a proper understanding of holistic admission, a concept that is often misrepresented by opponents of race-conscious admission. Too often, critics of race-conscious admission assert that holistic admission equates to a thumb on the scale for underrepresented minority students, an allegation without grounding in fact. The brief notes: “Holistic review in higher-education admissions involves integrated consideration of the totality of all academic, nonacademic, and relevant background factors that reflect the individual applicant’s promise to succeed, benefit, and contribute.”
The brief also emphasizes how a holistic review of student applications is best done with all relevant factors considered in combination. Throughout the history of race-conscious admission cases, plaintiffs have pointed to differences in quantitative measures as proof that underrepresented minority students get a leg up in the admission process. However, particularly at highly selective institutions, reliance on quantitative measures would not necessarily enable the institution to meet the varying objectives related to its educational and social mission. Moreover, ability of quantitative measures alone to predict success at any institution is constrained by many other factors, both intrinsic and extrinsic to the student. The brief notes simply: “Standardized test scores and grades, alone or in combination, do not equate to merit in holistic admissions.”
Finally, the brief offers the Supreme Court a preview of the consequences of prohibiting any consideration of race during the application review process. In short, attempting to factor racial identity and experiences out of admission consideration could create a new form of discrimination against students for whom race has inextricably shaped the dynamics of their lives. The brief states: “Eliminating consideration of an applicant’s unique lived experience and perspective associated with their race and ethnicity would unfairly treat applicants for whom that is a critical part of their life story.”
As evidenced by police violence, social unrest, and heightened awareness of systemic barriers to racial equity, an admission process that does not account for the experiences of underrepresented minority students effectively obscures the context in which they have spent their lives.
The Supreme Court’s agreement to hear these cases begs the question of whether the current justices, who have issued opinions overturning longstanding precedent in other cases, have already settled on a course of action that prohibits the consideration of race in admission. Such a conclusion is premature, according to court watchers, though preparing for that possibility is helpful. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson has recused herself from the Harvard case, though will participate in the University of North Carolina decision since the court separated the two. For more context on the court’s dynamics, a recording of NACAC’s webinar on these cases is available for free to association members.
Regardless of the court’s decision, NACAC will continue to strive for racial equity during the recruitment, application, and admission processes. As NACAC’s Toward a More Equitable Future in College Admission report notes, America’s higher education institutions are nowhere near a time when a student’s race can be excluded in making admission decisions. As such, NACAC is committed to providing research, training, and other resources to continue our pursuit of equity in college access.
America’s higher education institutions have long recognized and cultivated the educational benefits of diversity, and the court’s decision to hear these cases threatens to impede admission officers from doing everything they can to admit diverse classes of students. As NACAC CEO Angel B. Pérez wrote in a Forbescolumn earlier this year, undoing the ability of admission officers to consider race as a factor assumes we have reached a post-racial society where race no longer has a limiting impact on opportunity.
David Hawkins is the chief education and policy officer at NACAC.