Wednesday, July 12, 2023
HomeMacroeconomicsSonia Sotomayor's Dissent in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard and the...

Sonia Sotomayor’s Dissent in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard and the University of North Carolina Distills the Perspective of those in Favor of Affirmative Action — Confessions of a Supply-Side Liberal


To me, the following from pages 51 and 52 of Sonia Sotomayor’s dissent in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard does not give enough credit to the potential of good social science (footnote omitted):

2
As noted above, this Court suggests that the use of race in college admissions is unworkable because respondents’ objectives are not sufficiently “measurable,” “focused,” “concrete,” and “coherent.” Ante, at 23, 26, 39. How much more precision is required or how universities are supposed to meet the Court’s measurability requirement, the Court’s opinion does not say. That is exactly the point. The Court is not interested in crafting a workable framework that promotes racial diversity on college campuses. Instead, it an- nounces a requirement designed to ensure all race-conscious plans fail. Any increased level of precision runs the risk of violating the Court’s admonition that colleges and universities operate their race-conscious admissions policies with no “‘specified percentage[s]’” and no “specific number[s] firmly in mind.” Grutter, 539 U. S., at 324, 335. Thus, the majority’s holding puts schools in an untenable position. It creates a legal framework where race-conscious plans must be measured with precision but also must not be measured with precision. That holding is not meant to infuse clarity into the strict scrutiny framework; it is designed to render strict scrutiny “ ‘fatal in fact.’ ” Id., at 326 (quoting Adarand Constructors, Inc., 515 U. S., at 237). Indeed, the Court gives the game away when it holds that, to the extent respondents are actually measuring their diversity objectives with any level of specificity (for example, with a “focus on numbers” or specific “numerical commitment”), their plans are unconstitutional. Ante, at 30–31; see also ante, at 29 (THOMAS, J., concurring) (“I highly doubt any [university] will be able to” show a “measurable state interest”).

Colleges and universities could do a lot to carefully measure in a times series educational outcomes of all kinds (included those claimed as benefits of race-conscious admissions) if they made it a priority. I have written on that theme before:

Whatever outcome is claimed for education at a particular college or from a particular course of study can be measured—typically by appropriate survey or quiz questions, sometimes by other types of data collection. There are many other outcomes of interest beyond bare racial statistics.

RELATED ARTICLES

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

- Advertisment -
Google search engine

Most Popular

Recent Comments