Redefining Fairness: The Impact of Race-Neutral Admissions on Equity and Diversity in Education
The Supreme Court recently declined to hear an appeal regarding race-neutral admissions at the highly selective magnet math and science high school, Thomas Jefferson (TJ), located in Alexandria, Virginia. Before the heightened awareness following George Floyd's death, Asian enrollment at TJ was over 70%; it has since adjusted to just over 50%. In an effort to promote diversity—which, in this context, is synonymous with equity—the school board revised the admissions criteria. They eliminated the high-stakes, rigorous entrance exam and established a race-neutral policy. This policy entails reviewing applications without knowledge of the applicant's name, gender, or race, and also includes accepting top students from each surrounding middle school as feeders.
A lawsuit brought by a group of Asian American parents argued that these changes discriminated against Asian American students. However, this claim was dismissed by two lower courts, and the Supreme Court has now refused to hear the appeal, with Justices Alito and Thomas notably dissenting. Supreme Court Decision
It's crucial to understand that diversity is foundational to equity. Phrases like "Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion" encompass interdependent concepts akin to being happy, satisfied, and content—different, yet very much related.
In simple terms, educational equity ensures the fair distribution of educational opportunities and resources to every student. Discrimination, defined in an academic context, is the unfair treatment of students based on race, gender, religion, or any other demographic attribute.
The core issue revolves around what is considered fair. In this scenario, fairness equates to equal opportunity. The school board's race-neutral admissions policy, coupled with the removal of the entrance exam barrier, addresses historical imbalances. Quantitative research shows that traditionally, white and Asian males perform better on high-stakes high school entrance exams. Eliminating these exams doesn't discriminate against groups that traditionally benefit from them; rather, it removes a barrier that has historically excluded African Americans, Hispanics, and those from lower socioeconomic backgrounds, thereby promoting equity through enhanced access.
Moreover, the race-blind admissions process, in conjunction with the elimination of the high-stakes test, indicates that Asian students had been privileged by the former system due to historical performance trends. However, it's also critical to acknowledge that stereotypes about excelling in tests or in fields like math and science can be damaging, particularly for Asian students who struggle in these areas. From my experience working in higher education in Northern Virginia, the pressure on students who don't meet these stereotypical expectations is significant.
Equity encompasses both diversity and inclusion. If the United States aims to build a fair and just society, redistributing opportunities and dismantling barriers to access are essential steps. This process does not constitute discrimination.
A lingering question is how the race-neutral admissions policy is impacting the performance of students at Thomas Jefferson. If these students are thriving, it supports the argument that admissions criteria are constructs that have historically favored certain groups. Now, by altering these requirements to remove bias, we're moving toward a more equitable—though still imperfect—distribution of educational opportunities.
