Rep. Michelle Steel (R-Calif.) has taken a proactive stance on the issue of college admissions and transparency with the introduction of legislation meant to discourage racial profiling in college admission further.
Steel spoke to the issue the day after the Supreme Court’s landmark affirmative action ruling that banned colleges from continuing to treat race as a critical factor in admissions.
During a June 30 interview with The Epoch Times’ sister media NTD’s Steve Lance, Steel shed light on the proposed legislation and the Supreme Court’s ruling.
“It’s kind of discrimination when Asian American kids [get] so high on SATs, and they cannot get in because of the color of their face,” Steel said.
The congresswoman stressed the importance of fairness in college admissions, expressing concern over certain personality traits that allegedly disadvantage Asian American students during the selection process.
The text of Steel’s bill defined “personality traits” as “patterns of such individual with respect to behaviors, thoughts, and emotions, and may include patterns relating to humor, sensitivity, grit, leadership, integrity, helpfulness, courage, and kindness.”
Steel cited the Princeton Review, saying the college preparatory organization has told Asian American high schoolers that when they apply to college, to make sure they don’t add details about their culture into their essays or include a photo.
By demanding transparency, the congresswoman aims to tackle any potential discriminatory practices and promote an admissions system based on merit rather than race.
The lawmaker cited a proposition from her state decades before, California’s Proposition 209, which banned all preferential race treatment in public schools, as well as for hiring and contracting.
The Court’s Decision
In the 6-3 majority June 29 decision, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that “A benefit to a student who overcame racial discrimination, for example, must be tied to that student’s courage and determination.”The two cases before the court were both brought by Students for Fair Admissions Inc. (SFFA) and Harvard College, as well as the University of North Carolina, respectively.
The Harvard College case was twice dismissed, first in 2019 by a Barack Obama appointee, U.S. District Judge Allison Dale Burroughs, who stated that discrimination against Asian American applicants was not motivated by “racial animus... or intentional discrimination” and was “narrowly tailored to achieve diversity and the academic benefits that flow from diversity.”
SFFA argued in its appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit that Harvard College’s policies discriminated against Caucasian and Asian students.
The court had to take into consideration the 2003 ruling in Grutter v. Bollinger, where it was decided that universities can use race “only as a ‘plus’” in admission decisions, the filing said, “Race cannot be a minus for any applicant.”
The plaintiff assert that Harvard has “repeatedly penalized one particular racial group: Asian Americans,” it stated. “Harvard concedes that Asian Americans suffer a penalty on the personal rating—that changing an applicant’s race from white to Asian lowers the personal rating to a statistically significant degree.”
“Harvard also concedes that, when this tainted variable is removed, projected Asian-American admissions increase to a statistically significant degree,” the filing said.
University’s Response to the Ruling
In a statement issued on June 29, Harvard stated that it would “certainly comply” with the court’s decision while also affirming the principle that teaching, learning, and research depend on a community comprised of individuals from diverse backgrounds and life experiences.“Because the teaching, learning, research, and creativity that bring progress and change require debate and disagreement, diversity and difference are essential to academic excellence,” the university stated.
“To prepare leaders for a complex world, Harvard must admit and educate a student body whose members reflect, and have lived, multiple facets of human experience,” the statement said.
“No part of what makes us who we are could ever be irrelevant. Harvard must always be a place of opportunity, a place whose doors remain open to those to whom they had long been closed, a place where many will have the chance to live dreams their parents or grandparents could not have dreamed.”
“I’ve always believed that the promise of America is big enough for everyone to succeed and that every generation of Americans, we have benefitted by opening the doors of opportunity just a little bit wider to include those who have been left behind.”
