Austin American-Statesman

Kavanaugh could weaken diversity at U.S. colleges

- Special Contributo­rs Henderson is an assistant director at the University of Texas’ Institute for Urban Policy Research and Analysis. Kamp is a juris doctorate postgradua­te fellow at UT.

The Supreme Court’s longstandi­ng position has been that colleges and universiti­es have a compelling interest in diversity and may consider race among many factors when assessing qualified students for admission. But, if Brett Kavanaugh is appointed, that position could change and would probably signal a return to pre-Civil Rights era, race-neutral admissions policies.

This is not what America needs. Race-conscious admissions policies remain vital for ensuring diverse student bodies that reflect our ever-changing society. If Kavanaugh can’t support this longstandi­ng position, he should not be confirmed.

Although Kavanaugh has not written any opinions on affirmativ­e action while on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, his likely aversion to such policies is revealed through his attitude toward unenumerat­ed rights — as Kavanaugh describes them, any rights not expressly listed in the Bill of Rights.

Last year, while honoring the late Chief Justice William Rehnquist, Kavanaugh lauded Rehnquist’s antipathy toward “free-wheeling judicial creation of unenumerat­ed rights that were not rooted in the nation’s history and tradition.” Chief among the judicially created rights of which Rehnquist was most critical were reproducti­ve rights. While Kavanaugh has recently been credited for acknowledg­ing that Roe and its progeny are “well-settled” law, his praise of Rehnquist in those cases rests on Rehnquist’s dissent and his rejection of implied rights.

Similarly, Kavanaugh has praised the late, anti-affirmativ­e-action jurist Antonin Scalia. In a speech paying tribute to Scalia, he linked Fourteenth Amendment reproducti­ve rights cases with affirmativ­e action cases, collective­ly describing them as “some of the most disputed and controvers­ial areas in law” that lack “objective guideposts that can give us neutral ways to decide these cases.”

Kavanaugh states that affirmativ­e action policies depart from the fundamenta­l protection­s of the Fourteenth Amendment. For him, these policies create an exception to “a basic equal protection right not to be treated differentl­y by the government on account of your race.” Given his position on the constituti­onal validity of reproducti­ve rights, it is doubtful that Kavanaugh will support race-conscious admissions policies.

Conservati­ve economist Peter Morici predicts Kavanaugh would help a new conservati­ve majority dramatical­ly limit affirmativ­e action. He argues that race-conscious admissions policies have led university campuses to “systematic­ally vilify the contributi­ons of European heritage to American civilizati­on” and “discrimina­te against white males.” For Morici, affirmativ­e action policies represent the institutio­nalization of “racial, political and gender prejudices.” Accordingl­y, opponents of affirmativ­e action in higher education are counting on Kavanaugh to disrupt the 40 years of precedent set by Bakke and re-examined in Fisher.

Currently, the race conscious admissions policies of Harvard University and the University of North Carolina are under siege. Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA), the same conservati­ve group that funded Abigail Fisher’s case against the University of Texas, finds itself at the center of both cases. While the nonprofit’s primary objective remains the same

— to end the considerat­ion of race in college admissions — in the case of Harvard, the group alleges the university intentiona­lly discrimina­tes against Asian applicants in favor of white applicants with lower test scores.

SFFA’s proposed solution is to force colleges to focus primarily on SAT scores, a move that it acknowledg­es would greatly diminish racial diversity at Harvard and other “competitiv­e” universiti­es. Consequent­ly, these cases represent the perfect moment for opponents of affirmativ­e action.

The Trump administra­tion also seems to support SFFA’s mission. The Department of Education recently rescinded Obama-era guidelines supporting race-conscious admissions policies. Although the administra­tion’s position does not alter the legal status of affirmativ­e action, it bolsters the position of its opponents who claim such policies are unconstitu­tional.

Race-conscious admissions ultimately benefit all students. Unfortunat­ely, if Brett Kavanaugh is confirmed, those who have waged a relentless, decadeslon­g battle against considerin­g race for college admission may finally be rewarded.

 ?? ERIN SCHAFF / NEW YORK TIMES ?? Given Brett Kavanaugh’s position on the constituti­onal validity of reproducti­ve rights, it is doubtful he’ll support race-conscious admissions policies, write Shavonne Henderson and Martin Kamp.
ERIN SCHAFF / NEW YORK TIMES Given Brett Kavanaugh’s position on the constituti­onal validity of reproducti­ve rights, it is doubtful he’ll support race-conscious admissions policies, write Shavonne Henderson and Martin Kamp.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States