By SHANNON O. WELLS
Although a recent Supreme Court ruling effectively prohibiting race-based admissions practices at colleges and universities has Pitt leaders awaiting guidance on how to proceed, Marc Harding, vice provost for enrollment, emphasized that the June 29 decision does not diminish the University’s core mission.
Leading a discussion on the decision’s implications at the Senate Student Admissions, Aid and Affairs committee’s inaugural meeting for the 2023-24 academic year on Sept. 21, Harding said while the ruling creates a level of uncertainty at learning institutions, Pitt remains committed to principles spelled out in a provost’s office memo issued immediately after the court’s decision.
The memo said: “The University of Pittsburgh’s mission is to improve lives through education and knowledge. We believe that all of our students can and should benefit from this mission. And that diversity in all its forms enhances our individual and shared success and improves the educational experience. In the wake of today's ruling, these guiding principles remain unchanged, that we are evaluating our admissions practices to ensure that they continue to be inclusive, fair and fully compliant with the law.’”
Harding addressed the committee virtually while attending the National Association for College Admissions Counseling Conference in Baltimore. The event, he noted, provided ample reassurance that Pitt is not alone in remaining committed to inclusive principles regardless of court-imposed restrictions.
“I think it's important to recognize that the Supreme Court recognized that the ruling, in and of itself, does not impact/affect mission,” he said. “Our mission is up to the individual institutions that carry out the work at each of the colleges and universities in this country. So that's very, very important. We all remain very, very committed to the mission of the University of Pittsburgh, (and) certainly doing the work that we're doing on the admissions side and financial aid and other areas. That commitment is rock solid.”
Pushing back
Although many implications of the court’s Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard decision remain unclear, Harding emphasized the primary takeaway is that “race and ethnicity cannot be considered by law in admissions decisions … across the entire Pitt ecosystem,” he said, noting that this encompasses “over two dozen application centers” at Pitt, including regional and undergraduate campuses, graduate programs and schools, and professional schools.
Because of this decentralized structure, a group has formed to navigate the court-imposed changes.
“In my role I cannot answer for the entire ecosystem,” Harding said, noting the new group is meeting with members of Pitt’s general counsel, led by Stan O’Loughlin and Jen Seng, both of whom are “helping to work through this.”
Reading from the court’s opinion, Harding said nothing about it should be construed as prohibiting universities from considering an applicant's discussion of “how race affected his or her or their life. It was in the ruling itself. Again, that's complex, because we can consider qualities about their identity tied to students’ experience, perspective and goals.”
Some key items not addressed in the Supreme Court decision, he noted, include scholarships and financial aid, outreach and recruitment, pipeline and pathway programs, and data collecting and reporting. “They were not mentioned specifically in the ruling, and the guidance we received from the federal government did not touch upon these issues,” he said.
The ruling exempts military academies, including West Point, which recently became the subject of another admissions-based Supreme Court case. Also, a group called the Equal Protection Project is challenging scholarship standards in cases against Western Kentucky and Kansas State universities.
“We've been chatting recently about how we haven't seen (challenge) cases yet,” Harding said. “Well, here they come. It's going to take time to work through all this and understand the legalities.”
Knowing the unknowns
O’Loughlin, Pitt’s associate legal counsel, cites the 1978 Supreme Court case, “Regents of the University of California v. Bakke” as ground zero for today’s affirmative action/race-based admissions controversies in higher education. While the court decided that University of California–Davis’ quota system for admitting minority students was unconstitutional, a narrow majority also ruled that schools had a "compelling interest" in the educational benefits of a diverse student body. In other words, race could be considered, provided it was but one of several other factors.
“Basically, that's where it started, where these issues started to bubble up because of decisions by universities, particularly Bakke v. UC–Davis, and trying to grapple with problems of historical and systemic discrimination bias and other things,” O’Loughlin said. “And obviously, we're talking only maybe 30 years after Brown vs. Board of Education and other important decisions that are civil-rights related.”
The modern version of race-conscious admissions, or affirmative action, comes from the idea that a foundation in academic freedom allows universities to say that obtaining educational benefits that flow “from a racially diverse student body is a compelling interest,” O’Loughlin said. “And so for the next half century until the most recent decision, that was the underpinning of why universities were allowed to have race-conscious admissions policies.”
Throughout various challenges and cases, the Supreme Court has consistently affirmed that factoring in race is allowed if the schools “crossed their T’s and dotted their I’s,” O’Loughlin said.
The most recent case, “Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard,” however, is a game changer.
“The main takeaway — as far as most people who have looked at this are concerned — is that race really can't be considered in the admissions process,” O’Loughlin explained. “It doesn't mean that that schools have to blind themselves to a person's race any more than is necessary, but that it really can't be considered, even in essay context, where somebody talks about how race affected their life.
“What the admissions department is really allowed to consider is the way that it affected (a student’s) life,” he added. “In other words, other aspects that race amplified or changed or influenced (their life), not the race itself.”
With the court effectively claiming it is not reversing or overturning any prior precedents that allow race as a factor in some form, however, the case has “created a lot of confusion,” including at Pitt.
“Because of a number of other factors with the way that these groups operate — who have been challenging things — and litigation and the overall political atmosphere, there are not nearly as many answers as people want,” O’Loughlin admitted. “I'm certainly not satisfied with the guidance from the court, from the government,” the latter of which is “subject to the court, too.”
While it’s tempting to guess about the ruling’s specific implications now and in the future, he said, “a lot of those answers are unknown.”
Holistic approach
Ron Idoko, the Center on Race and Social Problems’ associate director, asked about regularly sharing information with the public “to help people understand what the approach is now, and how to help people really understand that the approach is still focused on, and rooted in, equity and inclusion.
“Because I think sometimes without some narrative or language, people start just making a guessing game,” he added, “and I think in this sense, it feels very negative.”
With race now off the table, Idoko also asked whether geographic diversity could be leveraged, “because you can clearly use ZIP codes … to be thoughtful about how you recruit students.”
Kellie Kane, associate vice provost for enrollment, said, “The short answer is yes. Geographic diversity we can absolutely still consider and we do, as we're trying to become a nationally and internationally ranked university.”
Kane noted she’s counting on Molly Swagler and her admissions team to build “a large funnel of diverse students” applying to Pitt, “and hopefully be able to admit them and yield them without using that one factor in the admissions decision.”
In the wake of the court ruling, the decentralization of Pitt’s admissions structure presents challenges, noted Amanda Godley, vice provost for Graduate Studies. “As you've probably heard me say before, we have over 350 graduate and professional programs at the University, each of which does admissions differently.
“They use over 20 different admissions application systems,” she added. “So to say it's decentralized is potentially an understatement.”
During the summer, Godley’s department met with representatives from various schools to talk about the court decision and how to align with the law, “while also striving for Pitt’s mission to be a diverse learning environment,” she said.
While individual schools were told they can’t use race as a factor in admissions (that check box has been “blinded” on applications), “we've also provided advice for other ways to achieve a diverse student body at the graduate and professional level.”
Godley noted a trend of graduate programs moving toward test-optional admissions, including the GRE and other standardized tests, with 97% of programs last spring reporting use of holistic admission strategies.
“Now there's probably a range of strategies there and we're holding some workshops this year on holistic admission strategies that are equity grounded and focused,” Godley said. “But I think that some of these practices have already been taking place and growing (in) predisposition.”
Harding emphasized “the scope, the breadth, the complexity” of Pitt’s efforts to clearly understand and adapt to court-driven changes.
“We're meeting every single week at least for 30 minutes,” he said. “We have a standing meeting. Why? Because when some news breaks, we need to sort of digest it and understand it.”
Shannon O. Wells is a writer for the University Times. Reach him at shannonw@pitt.edu.
Have a story idea or news to share? Share it with the University Times.