The Supreme Court of the United States last week reversed a longstanding precedent allowing race as a college admissions consideration that traces back to the late 1970s and that was reaffirmed in part in the early 2000s. The current case involved admissions practices at Harvard University and the University of North Carolina.
In reaction to the high court decision, Mississippi Commissioner of Higher Education Alfred Rankins Jr. said: “In general, Mississippi Institutions of Higher Learning undergraduates are admitted based on completing the college preparatory curriculum in high school, high school GPA, and ACT/SAT score. In consultation with the Attorney General’s Office, we will review the Supreme Court’s ruling and our general undergraduate, graduate, and professional school admission policies to determine if any changes are needed to ensure compliance with federal law.”
In broad, blunt strokes, Rankins stated Mississippi’s college admissions standards – standards that evolved in great measure out of the settlement of the protracted Ayers higher education lawsuit in the state. In 2002, the state and Ayers plaintiffs agreed to the settlement that would distribute $503 million over 17 years to Mississippi’s three historically black universities – Jackson State University, Alcorn State University, and Mississippi Valley State University.
U.S. District Judge Neal Biggers was in charge of enforcing the Ayers settlement, which imposed the same admissions standards for all of Mississippi’s eight institutions of higher education – or what came to be called “open enrollment.”
Under Judge Biggers’s decision, all Mississippi high school graduates with either a minimum 3.20 grade-point average (GPA) on the College Preparatory Curriculum (CPC) or
a minimum 2.50 GPA on the CPC and a composite score of 16 or higher on the American College Test (ACT) or the equivalent Scholastic Assessment Test (SAT) score or a minimum 2.0 GPA on the CPC and a composite score of 18 or higher on the ACT or the equivalent SAT score or standing in the top 50 percent of the class and a composite score of 16 or higher on the ACT or the equivalent SAT score.
Mississippi officials challenged the new admissions standards, but the U.S. Supreme Court refused to block their enactment.
For perspective, it’s important to note that the bedrock precedent case in U.S. higher education affirmative action wasn’t decided by the nation’s highest court until three years after the Ayers litigation in Mississippi began.
In 1978, the Supreme Court ruled in the appeal of the case of medical student Allan Bakke against the Board of Regents of the University of California challenging his denial of his application to their medical school. The court ruled, in essence, that using race as one factor in admissions was permissible, but quotas for underrepresented minority groups were not.
Mississippi’s Ayers litigation was filed in federal district court in 1975 by Jake Ayers, Sr., on behalf of his son, Jake Ayers, Jr. The lawsuit accused Mississippi of maintaining an unconstitutional dual system of higher education and that in doing so, the state denied equal opportunities to black students and faculty by favoring the state’s historically white institutions at the expense of historically black institutions.
The case was litigated for 29 years, during which Mr. Ayers, Sr., died – and the case was taken up by his widow, Mrs. Lillie B. Ayers.
Bakke won his case in California in 1978. Two unrelated 2003 cases involving the University of Michigan saw race-based admissions protected by the high court but saw the court strike down points-based systems that gave automatic points to minority students. Justice Sandra Day O’Connor opined in that case that “in 25 years” affirmative action might not be needed.
Timothy Peck, who pens an influential blog on college admissions, observed: “In general, affirmative action plays an insignificant role in the admissions decisions at most colleges and universities. A 2014 study from the National Association for College Admission Counseling (NACAC) found that only 3.4% of colleges reported race/ethnicity having a ‘considerable influence’ on decisions, and another 11.1% said it had a ‘moderate’ influence.”
That study aside, NACAC filed amicus briefs in both the Harvard and North Carolina cases defending affirmative action.
So, the fact is last week’s affirmative action decision by the Supreme Court will have minimal if any impact on college admissions in Mississippi. The Ayers settlement defined that issue in our state, and it is unlikely that the state’s “open enrollment” will be challenged in light of the latest SCOTUS decision on affirmative action.
Sid Salter is a syndicated columnist. Contact him at sidsalter@sidsalter.com.
30 comments:
perhaps so in undergraduate admissions.. NOT so in graduate schools- medicine, law, pharmacy etc.
Harvard quilty of RANK discrimination-- not by merit.
My daughter is a doctor. When she was in Medical School she often told me of students that should have never been there based on their limited education
Sid is employed by MSU. What does anyone think he is going to say about the admission standards? That they have been wrong and will need to be modified? If the NACAC didn't think they had to protect their turf and their practices, they wouldn't have field amicus briefs defending and supporting affirmative action. The fact of the matter is that the public universities in MS have very much considered race in admissions and scholarships awarded to minority students. All one has to do is look at the admission links on their websites to see the multitude of opportunities afforded to minority students.
A look at graduate schools like UMMC,law schools Vet schools is needed on Miss. to ensure compliance with the new SCOTUS decision.
I can say with 100% certainty that the professional programs at UMC have been using race as a factor for admission for years. People on admissions committees (not saying for what specific school, but I believe it's all the post graduate programs) are instructed to minimize test scores and academic performance and try to select and encourage those from "historically underrepresented groups" to be accepted.
I can say from personal experience that the professional schools had set aside programs at the medical school in which "minority" students took summer courses such as anatomy before the rest of their class. They also were tested on these courses and therefore had a "head start" on the rest of the class. This was not offered to Asian or White students, because I asked. Is that fair?
@127, there were (possibly still are) similar programs at Ole Miss Law. Those students attended classes, explained how to brief cases, take notes, make outlines, etc. all before regular classes (and the rest of the entering class showed up) began.
Affirmative action in it's original context was the issue in the 1970's Bakke decision. No "unqualified" persons were accepted in to the medical school program. In order to be accepted all applicants had to meet a relatively high admissions standard. The class size which is never set in stone could be increased to include more minority students to help alleviate the huge disparity created by years of minority exclusion. Bakke had a problem because he was not minority and fell just outside this expanded acceptance. The SCOTUS recognized the disparity was the result of historic racism and allowed that the state had a vested interest in making up ground among a QUALIFIED class of minority students. It was never intended that unqualified persons of any group gain preference, and in spite of statements by angry "victims" to the contrary few "unqualified" persons get into professional programs as a result of affirmative action.
110% there are med students that come through UMMC that got in based on their skin color. They have no business being a Dr. and while on their rotations, every one of us in the clinics see it and know they did not get admitted due to their brains. It's dangerous.
@2:02, can you at least agree that allowing qualified students of one race, regardless of that race, but not allowing other qualified students of another race with higher scores is discriminatory? That is exactly what was happening at Harvard. I don't believe the Asian-Americans who were rejected would consider themselves "angry victims" any more than James Meredith, The Little Rock Nine, or any other person who simply didn't want to be discriminated again simply because of their race. Roberts got it right when he said the way to stop discriminating based on race is to stop discriminating based on race.
Alcorn, Miss Valley, and especially Jackson State got their asses kicked by the IHL in the Ayers lawsuit. The HBCU's started out making an obvious argument that they were given the short end of the stick, or no stick at all over the years simply because of their racial makeup. DUH. Obvious facts especially for Jackson State. They end up settling because they had no more litigation money. The 503 million over almost 20 years is chicken feed compared to automatic allocations for UM, MSU and USM, and they don't even get that unless they can do the impossible... get white students to go there in significant numbers. The IHL has got to love Ayers. The only "affirmative action " involved fell on the HBCUs. Who got the last laugh?
As others have said, that's surely not true of UMC. I don't know who's in charge of admissions now, but it used to be a black female who did her darndest to keep white males out. I know people who went to other schools or fields (like veterinary medicine) because of her.
The comments on this blog support the notion that racial discrimination is alive and well. I have known plenty of white people who should not have been doctors or lawyers. Blacks were excluded from many colleges for decades, so it is necessary to even the scales through preferential admissions. The Trump Court got it wrong. Again.
2:21 I agree in principle but also point out the important fact that Harvard and hundreds of other schools have never, never, admitted students strictly on highest scores. Yale don't turn away George Bush and Georgia don't turn away Hershel Walker. It all depends on your priorities. The Supreme Court simply said RACE alone could not be one of those priorities.
@2:56
in your opinion the Court got it wrong.
But you know what?
It is the LAW going forward
Learn to love it.
@256, your solution to past discrimination is to have present and future discrimination. Thankfully, the US Supreme Court said, "No more."
Graduate schools are the first step in the gate keeping process that serves to protect the public from unqualified or dangerous professionals. There is a reason not everyone is admitted. Idiots come in all shapes, sizes and colors...All this decision does is take the race factor out of the equation. Admitting that any group of individuals would require a leg up based on any arbitrary criteria other than intellect is admitting that group of individuals could never achieve admission based on merit alone. Damn. That's cold!
I bet we can all agree that we want the most qualified individuals serving our communities regardless of what they look like on the outside. Because honestly this is basically what this dumbassery is truly about and how trivial?!. Anyone who can meet the intellectual requirements deserves an opportunity. PERIOD. If you are capable, regardless of race or sex this decision should not even remotely concern you because you will be admitted because you are the most qualified.
It is really quite simple. take sex, race and any other clue as to what advantages or disadvantages a person may have had in his or her past completely off the table and you will have the most qualified individuals being admitted and eventually serving the needs of the community. At the end of the day, this is what we should ALL want!!
2:56 you can try all you want to change the narrative to fit your feelings, but you couldn't be more wrong. One thing you can say for ABSOLUTELY sure (at least for the last 40 years) is that, if you find a white male (and to a slightly lesser extent, a white female - whatever that is) in medical school, they EARNED it. No other "class" of students has been more routinely excluded from medical schools over that period of time than white students. It's not even close.
No, the white students you find in medical school classes these days have almost unattainable resumes, such that their exclusion from these schools would be glaringly conspicuous. Why anyone in their right mind would believe that admitting less qualified students to become future doctors, in an effort to further their fantasy DEI goals, is beyond comprehension. I suspect they would completely change their goals if they thought they might ever meet one of their "admittees" in the operating room one day.
But.....isn't that usually the case? People with these irrational views never expect to be affected by the decisions they make in the name of social justice. It's only when they are that they almost universally change their tunes.
2:56 pm,
I'm not wishing any ill will on you, but what if you end up with a MD or JD the next time you need one, and they're incompetent and only licensed because of Affirmative Action? Or , God forbid, an airline pilot or someone REALLY important?
At what point is preferential treatment over? another 25 years?
@5:02 for the WIN- on merit.
Only one writer here seems to have a clue. The Supreme Court DID NOT say you MUST now allow entry on merit alone or without regard to some other arbitrary reason. It did NOT say entry MUST be fair to all applicants. It did not say only the best need apply. It said you cannot use RACE. Just don't use RACE. So if you are concerned about the "unqualified" black doctor operating on you, rest assured, he probably won't be black... just "unqualified". Feel better?
@2:56 - Reading comprehension isn't your forte, is it?
MSU and Old Miss have already lowered their standards and voluntarily take any student because of the money they make off the kickbacks from student loans. They let anyone who can find the campus enroll. No need for government mandates goals…
5:15 Being admitted to school and having an MD or JD are two very different things. Or did you go to school?
If they are just handing out diplomas or giving licenses willy-nilly we've got a bigger problem than affirmative action.
Sid, I hope one of your grandchildren applies to medical school or law school at the University of Mississippi and watches while a Black applicant with worse test scores and grades gets his or her spot.
@5:15
Why, yes, I did go to "school", thanks for asking. I went to
"school" and obtained an undergraduate degree at "school", then I obtained an M.D. at the same "school". I'm well aware of how "school" and licensing works. Any further questions?
I wonder why Sid didn’t address law school or medical school admissions. Perhaps in his next piece he will. His spin should be very interesting on that point.
In any event, just to be clear. whether there is discrimination against white students in favor of a minority student doesn’t mean automatically that the admitted applicant isn’t qualified at all for admission. But it can mean that a person with higher qualifications is denied admission in favor of another qualified applicant with lesser qualification, who, nevertheless still meets the minimum standard. Law schools, for example, have to consider the likelihood that the applicant will be successful in law school and pass the bar exam. Law schools, and, I presume medical schools, are not in the business of admitting unqualified applicants. So in sum, two points: 1. Discrimination based on race or sex in favor of a lesser qualified applicant should not occur under the law. It violates the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. 2. The lesser qualified student must still meet minimum standards for admission and be expected to meet the standards for admission or licensing upon graduation. Discrimination, even if illegal, doesn’t mean that the lower qualified person isn’t qualified for admission at all. Indeed, the qualifications for admissions are predictors, not guarantees of performance. High level applicants sometimes do not live up to expectations. Sometimes students with lower predictors significantly outperform expectations and end up highly ranked in their class.
I make the latter point to make sure the focus is on the actual issue, that while racial discrimination is illegal, it doesn’t mean the minority student is unqualified. One should not assume that because a professional is minority that he or she must have been unqualified for admission. That person must meet the same standards that all successful graduates must meet for licensure. As long as rigorous standards for licensure are maintained, unqualified persons of any background should not be licensed. Keep the focus on the real issue, discrimination based on race or sex, that benefits or disadvantages a person is wrong.
9:14 Why are you trying to confuse the issue with facts?
July 5, 2023 at 2:35 PM posted - "The IHL has got to love Ayers. The only "affirmative action " involved fell on the HBCUs. Who got the last laugh?"
I'm sure the last laugh has not yet been gotten. But I got a nice laugh when the court finally advised JSU that recruiting and admitting Russian students and others who had white or light complexions did not meet the order of the court.
The HBCUs were specifically ordered in Ayers to recruit and admit a mix to include more white students. And JSU was convinced that 'white' simply means 'not black'. Yep, that was a real belly roll.
What do you call the medical student who graduates at the bottom of the class? "Doctor"
Post a Comment