Since the Supreme Court’s decision in SFFA v. Harvard, people have been intently watching admissions percentages at our top colleges and universities to see how those schools have changed, if at all. One of the watchers is AEI’s Rick Hess, and in today’s Martin Center article, he argues that it is time to open the “black box” of college admissions.
He writes, “The aftermath of the 2023 Supreme Court ruling in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard (SFFA) has put a spotlight on the capriciousness of admissions practices at selective colleges. In SFFA, the Supreme Court ruled that race-based admissions violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. After immense consternation about the impact of the ruling, dire warnings, and earnest discussion about how colleges should respond, the truth is that we have limited insight into what’s changed, how colleges are actually responding, or whether they’re even abiding by the law.”
At some schools, percentages for “underrepresented minorities” are down, but not at others. Officials are still very guarded about their admissions formulas.
Hess continues, “Selective colleges have a track record of dubious conduct and show little inclination to change. Just like any exclusive country club, selective colleges use admissions policies to help pad their coffers, extend their influence, and curry favor among elites. And colleges have a First Amendment right to free association, giving them great discretion in determining whom they admit so long as they’re private actors—just like those country clubs. But the rules are different when public funds are at stake. Then the selling of access or corrupt conduct morphs from a private concern to a public one.”
Hess says that the federal government ought to condition receipt of tax dollars on the creation of truly transparent admission policies and making their data available to the public. If a college decides that it wants to continue a discriminatory policy, fine — but no more federal money.