Princeton has joined with its Ivy peers and six other schools in filing an amicus brief that argues against a Supreme Court challenge to the consideration of race in college admissions.
The court is scheduled to hear oral arguments Oct. 10 in Fisher v. University of Texas, a case filed by a white student who claimed that she was denied admission because of her race. The case provides the court an opportunity to revisit a 2003 ruling that race could play a limited role in admission policies.
Peter G. McDonough, Princeton’s general counsel, said the amicus brief emphasizes “our institutional interest in a student body with robust diversity, which promotes an environment that enriches the educational experience for all our students, and also prepares them as citizens and leaders in a heterogeneous nation and world.”
The schools recognize that admission policies that treat applicants differently on the basis of race “must be narrowly tailored to achieve compelling educational interests or objectives,” McDonough said.
The brief urges the court not to retreat from its prior recognition of the benefits of diversity and “the acceptability of considering race and ethnicity in the context of a holistic review of an applicant’s candidacy for admission,” he said.
In addition to the eight Ivy League schools, others participating in the brief are the University of Chicago, Stanford, MIT, Duke, Vanderbilt, and Johns Hopkins.
The Latest
See all
Related News
Remembering Landon Y. Jones ’66, Editor, Author, and Inveterate ‘Ripper’
Friends paid tribute Nov. 15 at a memorial service in the Princeton University Chapel
Princeton to Cut Way Down on Alums’ Free Google Email Storage
A squeeze from Google is prompting Princeton to slice the generous free email storage it offered alumni in the past
Meet Kathy Crow ’89: Philanthropist and Lightning Rod
The former lacrosse standout’s friendship with Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas stirred a national controversy
3 Responses
John Polt ’49
8 Years AgoThinking about diversity
I am not surprised that Princeton is raising its voice in defense of racial discrimination in college admissions (Campus Notebook, Sept. 19). Even one of its former presidents famously did so. All, of course, in the cause of a “robust” diversity that is supposed to bring great educational benefits.
Sadly, the chief diversity that seems to interest these folks is diversity in skin pigmentation; when it comes to diversity of opinions, which one might consider more directly linked to the educational enterprise, the enthusiasm slackens. And at the end of several years of benefiting from robust diversity, some (but not all) students get to celebrate separate (but, I am sure, equal) commencements. It’s best to laugh. Otherwise one would have to weep.
William C. McCoy ’45
8 Years AgoThinking about diversity
With respect to the Class of 2016 (Campus Notebook, Oct. 10), 42.1 percent of the students are “U.S. minority” and 11.3 percent are “international.” This leaves 46.6 percent who are something else, presumably U.S. students who are “white.”
So the “whites” are a minority (less than 50 percent), or perhaps, more accurately, a plurality. Compared to the U.S. population, I suspect that the “U.S. minority” students are overrepresented in the Class of 2016.
The Princeton University from which I graduated is long gone. I am not going to worry about it.
Angela Teen-On Weber s’81
8 Years AgoPutting applicants into racial boxes
According to Princeton’s general counsel (Campus Notebook, Sept. 19), the University is arguing, in a pending Supreme Court case, in support of “the acceptability of considering race and ethnicity in the context of a holistic review of an applicant’s candidacy for admission.” Let’s repeat that slowly. Princeton says it is acceptable to consider race and ethnicity in deciding who to admit to college.
It is completely unsurprising that Princeton has argued this, as it is a consummately politically correct position. Yet it is also the position that racists take. How did this happen?
May I suggest that the problem is the failure to distinguish between the prohibition of race-based decision-making, and the undertaking of race-based decision-making? To prohibit racial preferences/disadvantages, one need not decide anything more than that race-based decision-making is illegitimate. But to engage in racial preferences (for some)/disadvantages (for others, most heavily Asians) requires one to put individuals into racial boxes. Is one-quarter Latino enough for preference? One-eighth black? If a person is half-black, half-Asian, does that person count as a favored or disfavored ethnic group?
Racial labeling is no proper business of government agencies (or, for that matter, private agencies, including universities). Indeed, it is a fundamentally arbitrary and demeaning practice.
As a person of mixed ethnicity, I call upon the University to stop and think. Why is it arguing for precisely the privilege that racists long wielded?