By SUSAN JONES

The decision by the U.S. Supreme Court last week to strike down use of affirmative action in higher education admissions has sent ripples through colleges and universities throughout the country, and Pitt is no exception.

Outgoing Provost Ann Cudd, whose last day at Pitt was June 30 (the day after the ruling), was measured in her official response for the University: “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, and we are evaluating our admission practices to ensure that they continue to be inclusive, fair, and fully compliant with the law.”

Pitt’s application asks, but does not require, students to specify their ethnicity.

The court ruled in two cases brought by the Students for Fair Admissions against Harvard University and the University of North Carolina. The organization contended that the universities discriminated against Asian-American and white students in their admissions policies.

Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the majority opinion, which said: "Many universities have for too long ... concluded, wrongly, that the touchstone of an individual's identity is not challenges bested, skills built, or lessons learned but the color of their skin. Our constitutional history does not tolerate that choice."

He also said that those challenges can include an applicant’s race, if it is “concretely tied” to a “quality of character or unique ability” that the applicant can bring to the school.

Roberts also referred to a 2003 court ruling that reaffirmed the constitutionality of affirmative action programs. In the majority opinion in that case (Grutter v. Bollinger), then-Justice Sandra Day O'Connor wrote, “We expect that 25 years from now, the use of racial preferences will no longer be necessary to further the interest (in student body diversity) approved today.” That time has now come, Roberts said.

But Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson said the 6-3 ruling in the current case was “truly a tragedy for us all.” In her dissent, the court’s first Black female justice, said: “With let-them-eat-cake obliviousness, today, the majority pulls the ripcord and announces ‘colorblindness for all’ by legal fiat. But deeming race irrelevant in law does not make it so in life.”

President Joe Biden strongly disagreed with the decision in remarks on June 29 and asked the Education Department to explore policies that could help colleges build diverse student bodies, according to the Associated Press. He also pushed against policies like legacy preferences — admissions boosts given to the children of alumni — that tend to help white, wealthy students.

In response to the ruling, Lawyers for Civil Rights, a nonprofit based in Boston, filed a civil rights complaint July 3 on behalf of Black and Latino community groups in New England, alleging that legacy admissions at Harvard University violate the Civil Rights Act. The group says the practice discriminates against students of color by giving an unfair advantage to the mostly white children of alumni.

Opponents say the practice is no longer defensible without affirmative action providing a counterbalance. The court’s ruling says colleges must ignore the race of applicants, activists point out, but schools can still give a boost to the children of alumni and donors.

Local reaction

Pitt’s Senate Council President Robin Kear echoed Justice Jackson’s sentiment. “We have never had a colorblind society in America, and that will not change due to this ruling. The ruling will make it harder for higher education to create and foster educational diversity, with all of the benefits that brings to all of our students,” she said, noting that she’s sure the Pitt Office of Admission and Financial Aid and senior administration will be looking closely at how to interpret the ruling and any other related federal guidance over the coming months.

The Senate officers and various committees have been asking about this long-anticipated ruling over the past year and how Pitt was preparing for it, and Kear said the Senate will continue following the issue.

Senate Vice President Kris Kanthak, a political science professor who teaches a Politics of Diversity class, said, “Diversity makes groups perform better. The evidence on that is clear. The best incoming Pitt class is a diverse one. Figuring out which applicants will spur us all toward better and more creative thinking is a hard job, and this ruling may make it even harder to admit the best class. But it is vital that Pitt — and higher education in general — continue to seek diversity, or it will be left behind the businesses and organizations outside of academia who are already committed to getting the benefits of diversity and who seek workers who have experience in diverse environments.”

Leaders of other local universities also spoke out about their commitment to diversity after the Supreme Court ruling.

Carnegie Mellon President Farnam Jahanian said that, “A diverse class of scholars encourages students to question their own assumptions, test perceived truths and appreciate the complexity of the modern world. As we continue to evaluate today's ruling, we have confidence in our ability both to follow the law and to promote access and opportunity as essential to fostering a vibrant learning community."

A statement issued by Penn State said the university “remains resolute that diversity among students, faculty and staff deepens the educational experience Penn State offers and the range of opportunities the University's students enjoy. People with differing perspectives and from different backgrounds — be they racial or ethnic, financial, geographic, or cultural, to name a few — greatly contribute to the academic discourse that is vital to higher education. We remain committed to enhancing the diversity of our academic community, and believe higher education provides enormous personal, professional and societal benefits and should be accessible to students from as many different backgrounds as possible.”

Impact of affirmative action

Zachary Bleemer, an incoming assistant professor of economics at Princeton University who has studied the impact of California banning race and gender as factors in state university admissions in 1998, talked to NPR last month about that decision. He said Berkeley and UCLA, the most selective public universities in the state, saw declines in Black and Hispanic enrollment of about 40 percent the year after the proposition was implemented, but less selective schools saw no net change. He also said, “Black and Hispanic students saw substantially poorer long-run labor market prospects as a result of losing access to these very selective universities.”

The nonprofit National Diversity Council issued a statement before the ruling: “For more than 40 years, higher education institutions have considered race as one of multiple factors in the admissions process.

"Race-conscious admissions programs have effectively enhanced diversity in colleges and universities across the United States and advanced greater opportunity for all," said Anika Rahman, CEO of the National Diversity Council. "Any change to this policy will have devastating implications for academia, the corporate sector and our society."

Susan Jones is editor of the University Times. Reach her at suejones@pitt.edu or 724-244-4042.

Have a story idea or news to share? Share it with the University Times.

Follow the University Times on Twitter and Facebook.