The U.S. Supreme Court recently declined to review a case challenging the race-based admissions policy implemented temporarily by three prestigious Boston public schools during the COVID-19 pandemic. The policy aimed to address racial disparities in school admissions by considering factors like grade-point averages, ZIP codes, and family income, rather than standardized test scores, which were not feasible due to the pandemic. The plan, used only for the 2021-22 school year, aimed to rectify inequities by creating admissions quotas based on ZIP code, then ranking students by their academic performance and financial background. However, the policy was controversial, with some claiming it disproportionately affected Asian and white students.
In response to the policy, a group of parents and students filed a lawsuit, arguing that the plan violated the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution, both under state and federal law. The plaintiffs claimed that the policy resulted in a disparate impact on Asian and white students. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit upheld the policy, asserting that the plaintiffs had failed to provide sufficient evidence that the admissions system negatively impacted these groups, particularly since both white and Asian students were overrepresented in the schools. The court further noted that there was no discriminatory intent behind the policy and criticized the plaintiffs’ statistical analysis as unreliable.
The Supreme Court’s decision not to take up the case followed closely after its 6-3 ruling that struck down race-based affirmative action in university admissions. Despite this, Justices Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, and Clarence Thomas voiced strong disagreement with the denial of certiorari. Alito, in particular, dissented, with Gorsuch agreeing with his assessment. While Gorsuch acknowledged that the contested admissions policy was temporary and had already been replaced, he expressed concerns about the reasoning used by the First Circuit Court. He noted that Alito’s statement highlighted significant issues with the court’s analysis that the Supreme Court might need to reconsider in the future.
Alito’s dissent was sharply critical of the Boston schools’ admissions plan, describing it as a clear example of “racial balancing.” He argued that the policy was designed with the explicit intention of promoting racial equity by reducing the representation of white and Asian students, while increasing the number of Black and Latino students. Alito pointed out that the policy resulted in a notable shift in the racial makeup of the schools: Black students increased from 14% to 23%, Latino students grew from 21% to 23%, while the percentage of white students decreased from 40% to 31%, and Asian students dropped from 21% to 18%.
Alito criticized the process by which the policy was adopted, noting that it was heavily influenced by the views of “anti-racist activist” Dr. Ibram X. Kendi, who openly stated that the policy was designed to close racial and economic gaps. Additionally, he referenced troubling behavior during the meetings that led to the policy’s implementation, including the mocking of Asian-sounding names by committee members. This, according to Alito, constituted clear evidence of intentional discrimination.
Alito concluded that the policy represented an unconstitutional form of racial balancing, aimed at altering the demographic makeup of the schools under the guise of promoting racial equity. He also expressed his frustration that the Supreme Court had once again failed to intervene in a case that could have been a critical opportunity to correct what he saw as a significant constitutional error. Alito’s dissent emphasized his belief that the First Circuit’s approach to disparate impact was deeply flawed and that such practices posed a real danger of perpetuating race-based affirmative action policies, which had already been invalidated in the context of university admissions by the Court’s decision in Students for Fair Admissions.
Alito’s remarks underscore a deep divide in the Court over how race should be considered in admissions policies, reflecting broader national debates about affirmative action and efforts to achieve racial equity in educational institutions. His dissent signals a continued push by conservative justices to challenge policies that, in their view, use race in ways that violate constitutional principles of equal protection.
