Most private schools use affirmative action to promote on-campus diversity, but that practice could be altered by an upcoming Supreme Court ruling.
The ruling on the University of Michigan’s admissions policy will obviously affect public universities, but because almost all private universities receive federal funds the high court’s ruling would affect them as well.
“Private colleges are going to be held to the same standard because they accept federal funds,” said Jon Fuller, senior fellow for the national association of independent colleges and universities.
If the justices ban all consideration of race in admissions, then private universities would have to find other ways to promote diversity.
In their admissions policies, most private universities describe how they want a diverse student body to help enrich the learning experience of everyone on campus.
“Part of putting together a good university is having a student body that can learn from each other,” Fuller said.
Last week, Stanford president John Hennessy reaffirmed his support of using affirmative action to raise diversity in response to the University of Michigan case.
“We remain committed to affirmative action, to the importance of diversity broadly defined,” Hennessy said in a statement.
At the same time, Stanford distanced itself from how Michigan uses affirmative action, giving 20 points on a 150 point scale to underrepresented minorities applying as undergraduates.
Affirmative action opponents refer to the points system as a quota. The use of quotas in admissions was banned in University of California Board of Regents v. Bakke in 1978.
But most private universities have fewer applicants and more admissions officers so they do not need to use such a formula, Fuller said.
The Supreme Court may rule that the Michigan points system is unconstitutional without ruling on other ways of considering race in admissions.
Most private colleges would not be legally affected in this situation but could still be swayed by public opinion, making it hard to use affirmative action in any form, Fuller said.
“Whatever the Supreme Court says, it’s going to have a moral persuasion to it,” Fuller said.
The plaintiffs claim the points system is a violation of the 14th Amendment, which guarantees equal protection under the law for all people regardless of race, ethnicity or creed.
The 14th Amendment applies only to the state and federal governments and institutions, including public universities.
But Title VI of the 1965 Civil Rights Act makes the ruling applicable to any entity – public or private – that receives federal funds, Fuller said.
“Courts have always held that the same standard for discrimination under the 14th Amendment applies under Title VI,” Fuller said.
In California, public universities have been banned from considering race in admissions since Proposition 209 went into effect.
Because Proposition 209 is only a state law, it does not apply to private universities like Stanford and USC.
This has allowed private universities to continue using affirmative action to raise diversity. Public schools like UCLA do not have this option, which sends many underrepresented students to private schools.
“Proposition 209 was in many ways of great value to Stanford, USC and Loyola,” said Laura Gomez, a UCLA law professor specializing in Chicano studies and race relations.