US Supreme Court’s affirmative action decision a nod to education’s need to evolve with the times

The US top court’s decision ending affirmative action – amid increasingly vocal opposition and changing public opinion – bans a policy that is credited with making higher education more diverse but is also controversial

Bernard Chan

Published: 3:30am, 14 Jul 2023

Why you can trust SCMP

University admission policies in the United States have evolved around the policy of affirmative action. Using criteria formulated to promote diversity and reduce discrimination, they give preferential treatment to candidates from disadvantaged groups, ranging from racial and ethnic minorities to women and those from low-income families.

Its roots date back to 1961, when John F. Kennedy established the President’s Committee on Equal Employment Opportunity. In the following years, affirmative action became an important constituent of the university admissions process.

The recent ruling by the Supreme Court upheld an argument that race cannot be factored into the admissions policy of colleges in the US, and that the University of North Carolina and Harvard University are in breach of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution.

The policy of affirmative action is controversial in some circles, and over the years has been the subject of much debate. Including this kind of preferential treatment in addition to examination results and school grades stands in contrast to countries whose university admissions policies are based primarily or entirely on exam results.

In the case of Hong Kong, universities funded by the University Grants Committee have a cap of 20 per cent on places for non-local students at sub-degree, undergraduate and taught postgraduate levels.

More than half are from the mainland and the rest from all around the world. Some local students might see this as a threat while others see it as adding a valuable international dimension, greater diversity and higher overall standards.

The case that led to the Supreme Court striking down affirmative action was brought by Students for Fair Admissions. The advocacy group argues that affirmative action is not fair, necessary or constitutional.

Arguments on the other side of the issue, however, state that affirmative action redresses discrimination that has historically been targeted against minority groups, many of whom end up segregated in the US public school system based on their race, ethnicity or socioeconomic status.

A large number of US schools are underfunded and lack the resources required to meet the needs of their students or enable them to reach their full academic potential. Neither can they consistently prepare their brightest candidates for the academic challenges of entry to top-tier universities. Access to supplementary academic support, such as additional private tutoring to raise standardised test scores, is simply not an option.

It appears as though there is a large part of the US populace that feels affirmative action in university admissions is unfair, particularly among Asian-Americans. Concerns around this issue have grown amid the rise of anti-Asian racism during the Covid-19 pandemic. Increased geopolitical tensions between the US and China are also contributing to growing unease among Asians in the US.

TikTok is targeted in the US for being Chinese, not for its deeds

In a survey of 5,000 US adults whose results were released last month, the Pew Research Centre found significant opposition to selective colleges and universities taking prospective students’ racial and ethnic backgrounds into account when making admissions decisions. Half of the respondents disapproved of the policy while 33 per cent approved and 16 per cent were not sure.

With university admissions back in the spotlight, certain universities’ policy of legacy admissions – prioritising applicants on the basis of historic family relationships – is also coming under heavy scrutiny. Lawyers for Civil Rights – a Boston-based non-profit – has filed a federal complaint with the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights against Harvard, alleging that the university’s legacy admissions practice is a violation of the Civil Right Act and thus unfair.

The outcome of this latest round of complaints and lawsuits will take time to become clear. One thing that is certain, however, is that the outcome of decisions made in terms of university admissions, whether holistic or based on grades alone, has a significant impact on the subsequent direction of the individual and their value and contribution to society.

China’s ethnic groups face end to affirmative action in education, taxes

The Chinese government clearly understands this and has undertaken comprehensive reform across all levels of education as part of the education modernisation plan that was announced in 2019. Its objective is to promote innovation, creativity, critical thinking and align teaching methodology with technical development.

Education needs to constantly evolve to remain relevant and meet the requirements of today’s rapidly changing world. We need to equip people with the skill sets required to address common challenges we face as global citizens, reduce disparity and provide for all members of society.

Bernard Chan is a Hong Kong businessman and a former Executive Council convenor