Dean of Admissions Discusses Threat to Affirmative Action

Continued from page 2 achievement in favor of curating a diverse student body. Park admitted that, in order to live the stated value of diversity, college admissions offices often have to prioritize admitting students who have faced adversity over students with the highest test scores. However, Park further explained that there is a general consensus that having overcome adversity, like academic achievement, is a valuable quality for a well-rounded student body.

He continued, “there’s actually very broad agreement that your racial identity can be something that poses adversity to you,” implying that race can, in some cases, be used as a proxy for identifying students who have overcome adversity.

In assessing the impacts of omitting race from college admissions, McGann said that Amherst has looked to the University of California and the University of Michigan systems for information. Through ballot initiatives, both systems voted that race would not be a factor in the admissions process.

“They saw significant declines in racial and ethnic diversity,” said Mc-

Gann. “Those impacts were most severely seen and have continued to be most severe and stinging among Black students and Native American students.”

Both the California and Michigan systems attempted to maintain a racially diverse student body using other strategies, and the efficacy of such alternatives to affirmative action were the subject of many questions during the oral arguments in October. For instance, they have used socio-economic status as a proxy for race and have intensified recruitment efforts in minority communities. But, McGann pointed out, “They have not been able to get back to the same place of diversity where they were before these ballot initiatives were enacted … it’s not enough.”

According to Park, it is difficult to predict how a ruling against affirmative action would play out at Amherst, as the impacts of a ruling affecting race-consciousness are likely to be “completely different from institution to institution.” He highlighted the example of the “personality rating” to illustrate this point. In Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard

College, one piece of evidence used in the case is the fact that Harvard consistently assigns Asian American students lower “personality ratings” than other students.

However, Park pointed out that at the University of North Carolina, “Asian American students have higher personal ratings than other backgrounds, if you control for academic credentials.”

Park remains optimistic that the court will rule in favor of UNC: “I think we’re going to win the case,” he said. Park further explained that “I still think that there is a working majority of the court that believes in diversity very strongly and does view it as a compelling interest.”

The questions that will decide the case, he believes, are: “Is the consideration of race necessary to advance that compelling interest? Are there other ways to meet that compelling interest without conscious consideration of race?”

McGann, who has been following the cases closely, was less cer- tain of the outcome, remarking, “I’m not naive to the current realities of this court and the degree to which they’ve been willing to overturn decades of precedent to go against people’s rights, and that gives me a lot of fear.”

“We all have to collectively embrace the responsibility to be a part of this process,” said Park, “There is no case that decides what your values are, and the whole point of democracy [is that] it’s all up to us to decide.”