One of the most complicated issues within the American education system is the long-standing debate surrounding the ethics of Affirmative Action. Affirmative Action, the practice of favoring individuals belonging to groups regarded as disadvantaged or subject to discrimination, aims to increase equity and inclusivity within American institutions [1]. However, critics of Affirmative Action argue that it actually poses the opposite effect by discriminating based on racial factors. The debate dates back to the 1960s, and while considering an applicant's race has long been standard in the academic admissions process, recent court cases have made the Supreme Court revisit the issue, prohibiting race-based Affirmative Action in universities' admission decisions. Now, with a recent ruling on February 20th, 2024, that allows for "race-neutral" admissions, the debate is more complicated than ever. 

On June 29th, 2023, two companion cases, Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard University and Students for Fair Admissions v. University of North Carolina, were brought to the Supreme Court. In these two landmark decisions, the Court held that race-based Affirmative Action programs in college admissions violate the Fourteenth Amendment under the Equal Protection Clause. Moreover, the Students for Fair Admissions v. the University of North Carolina effectively overruled two previous cases, Grutter v. Bollinger and Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, which allowed for partial Affirmative Action in the college admissions process so long as race was only a small portion of an applicant's complete profile [2]. 

However, in a court hearing on February 20th, the Supreme Court chose not to review a case regarding the admissions policy at a prestigious magnet school in Northern Virginia known as Thomas Jefferson High School of Science and Technology, which implemented changes to its admissions process in 2020 that aimed to increase the school's diversity. The case was brought to the Supreme Court by outraged parents who argued that the school's "race-neutral" policies were discriminating against white and Asian-American students [3].  

Thomas Jefferson High School's revised "race-neutral" admissions process factors in information such as the neighborhoods where admits reside and their socioeconomic status. The school also omitted the hundred-dollar application fee and set aside a fixed number of spots for students from each of the surrounding county's middle schools, all in hopes of increasing the equity and diversity of the student body. 

The first effect of the "race-neutral" admissions process in Thomas Jefferson High School was an increase in Black and Latino enrollment and more female and low-income students. However, there was a 20% drop in the percentage of admitted Asian-American students. These changes angered many parents, who argued that the "race-neutral" process aimed to decrease Asian-American enrollment, driving the Parents' Group Coalition at the school to file a lawsuit against the school board in 2020 under the claim that the new admissions process was discriminatory [4]. 

The District Court originally agreed with the Parent Group's lawsuit in 2022, stating that the new admissions process was unconstitutional. However, later in the year, the divided U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit reversed the decision [5]. The Court came to a new consensus that the process was not discriminatory towards Asian Americans, given the fact that the majority of the admitted students were still Asian-American.

After this reversion, the school appealed the ruling, and the 4th Circuit responded by requesting that​ Thomas Jefferson High School continue using the "race-neutral" enrollment system until the legal battle ended. This grant led to even more disagreement as the school's coalition proceeded to make an emergency request to the Supreme Court to block school administrators from using the policy, and the High Court declined.

The High Court's decision to decline follows a ruling from June 2023 in which the Supreme Court struck down admissions processes at Harvard University and the University of North Carolina deemed race-conscious. In these rulings, the Court kept open the constitutionality of admissions processes that do not directly consider race as a factor of enrollment, like in the case of Thomas Jefferson High School. The Harvard University and University of North Carolina cases rolled back decades of past court decisions, significantly changing the nation's universities' enrollment processes. Given that the school implemented these policies to create diverse student bodies and reverse systemic injustice, the rulings drew backlash and worries about the future of diversity at American institutions [6].

 Supporters of the "race-neutral" admissions process saw the decision as a victory. Jiunwei Chen, the vice president of the alum group that initially pushed for the change, felt like the decision relieved the ongoing battle but recognized that the fighting was not over. Conversely, Court Justices, parents, and political figures alike all shared worries concerning the decision. 

Two Justices sitting in the Court, Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas, indicated their disagreement with the decision, saying they would have struck down the policy. Alito blatantly spoke up against the ruling, arguing that the decision should have been completely wiped out of the books. In a statement, he made the point that the Appeals Court decided that "intentional racial discrimination is constitutional so long as it is not too severe," meaning that the Court is selectively choosing when it is okay to select race as a factor for admissions. He added, "this reasoning is indefensible, and it cries out for correction" [7]. Alito's willingness to speak so openly and strongly about the issue indicates how important many people feel this case is to the future of admissions policies.

Similarly, Joshua Thompson, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, argued that public magnet schools like Thomas Jefferson are designed to be engines of social mobility for minorities and immigrant students. Thompson stated that the "majority's fallacious reasoning works a grave injustice on diligent young people who yearn to make a better future for themselves, their families, and our society." Thus, he argues, "race-neutral" policies could rob potential students of a better future. Thompson's belief sheds light on a fear that many people have around this case, which is the fact that the Supreme Court may have missed an opportunity to end race-based discrimination in pre-college enrollment.

Virginia Governor Glenn Youngkin also criticized the decision, saying that the school's admissions policy penalizes high-achieving students to promote equity. In a statement, Youngkin argued that "this nation was built on crafting a better future through hard work and determination." Later, he added that he is doing what he can to recommit to those ideals. The most discontent of all came from the parents of the school. Asra Nomani, a parent and co-founder of the school's coalition, described the decision as "a punch to the gut" but promised to keep fighting. Nomani stated that the school's coalition has plans to support other families across the country trying to challenge similar issues within their school, "we've been in this long battle and had a real faith in the American justice system," adding that "it's shocking and devastating that the Supreme Court ruled race couldn't be used as a factor in admissions in colleges allows for this proxy discrimination that we see used in the admissions policy at Thomas Jefferson." Describing the decision as "proxy discrimination" poses a complicated question about the role race plays in admissions. To what extent, if any, should race be considered in admissions? Moreover, is it fair to consider race in some instances and not others? And if so, what are the right requirements for consideration? Interest groups on both sides of the argument have valid reasoning to support a specific side. Yet, it is a difficult issue to compromise on, considering the moral and ethical considerations. The varying opinions help explain why the argument has remained relevant for the past 50 years and will continue to draw debate so long as equity issues remain in our education system. 

Overall, attempting to foster racial diversity without discriminating based on race is an ongoing task that our nation's institutions need to achieve and yet has no easy solution. Opposers consider "race-neutral" policies to be a disguised form of Affirmative Action and thus have the potential to discriminate against applicants who are not a part of a minority group. At the same time, however, the history of the American education system suggests that it is nearly impossible to reach the same level of diversity and equity in schools without at least partially factoring race into the admissions process. For example, In the 90s, California voted for Proposition 209, which banned universities from considering race. Soon after,  Black and Hispanic enrollment at prestigious universities dramatically fell, and enrollment at less selective schools rose. Minority students became less likely to earn STEM degrees, get a master's, and graduate, and overall, Black and Hispanic students earned less in their careers after college compared to before the proposition, highlighting the immense ramifications of the decision. Dating back to the foundations of American institutions, discrimination has created systemic and ongoing disadvantages for non-whites, and there are cross-generational effects still present today [8].

Thus, the question of what role race should play in admissions continues. Having more interpretations of what is and isn't discriminatory may lead to a ripple effect in the educational system and beyond, as schools are looking to this new case as guidance for their admissions processes. Other high schools have adopted similar systems, and legal cases opposing similar policies have been filed across the country. The new admissions policy at Thomas Jefferson High School could be the road map for other high schools to navigate last year's Supreme Court decision, which could have substantial implications. Some fear that the leeway of this case gives way to a complicated future for admissions processes intended to accomplish a racial objective while appearing on their face to be race-neutral. Others argue that in order to bolster diversity and close the education gap, considering race is vital in at least some form in schools' application process, and thus, this decision is encouraging for the future. What civil rights attorneys consider a weakening of educational barriers is perceived by conservative legal activists as racial balancing, meaning an increase in opportunities for some groups at the expense of others. The issue may signify the need to address a deeper-rooted problem: what causes educational inequalities in the first place?

The debate surrounding race in school admissions processes highlights an underlying issue within the American education system. Education in the United States heavily relies on state and local resources, with only a small portion of the federal budget allotted to the system. The system is not meeting equity expectations and thus is not living up to the ideal of providing an adequate education to all children. High-poverty districts, which on average contain larger percentages of students of color, receive less funding than low-poverty districts, which on average contain white students, illuminating the system's inequalities [9]. It is essential to ensure that high schools and colleges provide more opportunities to diverse students, given that the lack of racial diversity in higher education is at least partially attributed to the lack of quality education below the college level. At the root of the issue is the fact that an applicant's pre-teen educational and non-educational investment significantly impacts their ability to achieve success. For example, students from higher-income households tend to score higher on standardized tests, given the difference in preparation they receive. Most of the conversation surrounding Affirmative Action looks to fix symptoms of the problem, including college admissions ratios and neglects the underlying systemic issues deeply rooted in the United States. More funding should go to middle and grade school education to ensure a strong foundation for students' developmental learning. Suppose more emphasis is placed on ensuring a strong, equal youth education for every student. In that case, the effects will not only improve the next generation of learners but also work to close the education gap and racial disparities that our current system perpetuates.