Photo credit: www.cbsnews.com

Supreme Court Declines to Review Boston Schools’ Admissions Policies

Washington — The U.S. Supreme Court recently opted not to hear a case regarding the race-neutral admissions policies implemented at three prominent high schools in Boston. These changes were aimed at promoting greater racial and economic diversity within their student populations.

Justice Neil Gorsuch mentioned that the schools have revised their admissions process, which significantly reduces the need for the Court’s examination of the issue. However, Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas expressed their disagreement with the decision to dismiss the case without further scrutiny.

This challenge emerged following the Supreme Court’s ruling in June 2023, which invalidated race-based considerations in admissions for higher education institutions. Consequently, educational institutions across the country are reassessing their approaches to diversify student bodies in compliance with this decision. Many are turning to factors such as zip code and socioeconomic status as alternatives to traditional race-based criteria.

The three Boston institutions in question, known as Exam Schools, include Boston Latin School, Boston Latin Academy, and the John D. O’Bryant School of Mathematics and Science. Historically, their admissions were contingent on a combination of standardized test scores, grade point averages, and individual preferences. The pandemic disrupted this exam-centric process, prompting a re-evaluation of the admissions criteria.

In response to the pandemic’s challenges, a new admissions framework was adopted, wherein 20% of available slots were allocated based on students’ GPAs, while the remaining places were filled by the top-performing students from each of Boston’s zip codes. This revised admissions cycle operated from November 2020 to January 2021. Under the updated system, 43% of the admitted students were classified as economically disadvantaged, an improvement from the previous year. The demographics of the admissions class were reported as 31% White, 23% Black, 23% Hispanic, and 18% Asian, according to court documentation.

In contrast, the earlier admissions framework saw 39% of students invited being White, 21% Asian, 21% Hispanic, and 14% Black. Notably, this new admissions policy was only in effect for a single year. From the 2022-2023 academic year onwards, a further revised plan was introduced, factoring in grades, census tracts, and standardized test performance.

The legal dispute began in February 2021 when the Boston Parent Coalition for Academic Excellence filed a lawsuit against the Boston School Committee and its superintendent on behalf of 14 anonymous students, predominantly White and Asian, who contended that the admissions policy was being applied unfairly. They sought a court order to halt the implementation of this admissions plan.

A federal district court ruled in favor of the school system, asserting that the revised admissions policy was constitutionally sound and race-neutral. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit upheld the lower court’s decision, affirming that the Boston School Committee’s neutral criteria aimed at enhancing racial diversity were permissible under the Supreme Court’s rulings.

The coalition subsequently appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the current admissions criteria were specifically crafted to limit the number of Asian American and White applicants admitted to these schools. They contended that the 1st Circuit’s ruling set a precedent allowing school districts to explicitly target students based on their racial background.

In their legal filing, they warned that the Supreme Court’s failure to review the case would enable government bodies to continue practices that might discriminate against specific racial groups, particularly Asian Americans, as they put it in their petition.

Conversely, the Boston School Committee argued that there is no substantial controversy left for the Supreme Court to adjudicate. They highlighted that the challenged admissions criteria were a temporary measure adopted due to the pandemic’s unique challenges, and the criteria had already been abandoned.

Lawyers for the school district maintained that the brief admissions plan was implemented and concluded prior to the Supreme Court’s decision concerning affirmative action.

The school district further emphasized that the Court’s precedents do not require a public organization to ignore how its neutral policies might affect historically marginalized communities or contribute to remedying past disparities.

Justice Alito remarked that by choosing not to take on this case, the Supreme Court has missed another opportunity to rectify what he described as a significant constitutional oversight that could perpetuate race-based affirmative action in contravention of the policies established in the Students for Fair Admissions case earlier this year.

This case is not the only one of its kind currently in front of the Supreme Court. The justices have also been called upon to intervene in other disputes concerning admissions practices, including those from a notable Virginia high school and the United States Military Academy at West Point.

In February, the Court declined to address challenges to admissions policies at Thomas Jefferson High School for Science and Technology, where the administration asserted that the strategies employed are designed to alleviate socioeconomic and geographic barriers for applicants. Additionally, the Supreme Court allowed West Point to continue considering race in its admissions until a legal resolution is reached in an ongoing appellate review.

Source
www.cbsnews.com