OPINION: This article may contain commentary which reflects the author's opinion.
The U.S. Supreme Court has rejected an appeal by a group of parents and students who claimed that the new admissions policy of a prestigious public school in Virginia discriminates against Asian Americans based on their race. The court rejected the opportunity to further limit efforts to advance diversity in education.
The plaintiffs claimed that the admissions policy of Thomas Jefferson High School for Science and Technology violated the equal protection guarantee of the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution, Reuters reported.
The justices upheld a lower court ruling that rejected their claim. At this school in the Alexandria, Washington, suburb, Asian Americans make up the bulk of the student body.
The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, located in Richmond, Virginia, issued a decision that conservative Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas dissented from, citing the court’s findings as “patently incorrect” in terms of what constitutes “prove intentional race discrimination.”
In a historic decision rendered last June, the court’s conservative majority of 6-3 dismissed race-conscious college and university admissions practices that had long been employed to increase the proportion of black, Hispanic, and other minority students on campuses.
A magnet school known by the nickname “TJ” and dedicated to math, science, and technology, Thomas Jefferson is extremely selective and regularly ranked among the top public high schools in the United States.
“We have long believed that the new admissions process is constitutional and in the best interest of all our students. It guarantees that all qualified students from all neighborhoods in Fairfax County have a fair shot at attending this exceptional high school,” Karl Frisch, who chairs the Fairfax County School Board, said after Tuesday’s decision.
Earlier, when the coalition attempted to stop the policy in the middle of the legal dispute, the Supreme Court rejected their request.
The court’s 2023 affirmative action decision overturned decades of precedent, invalidating admissions practices used by Harvard University and the University of North Carolina that included race as one of several considerations.
The plaintiffs in the Virginia lawsuit, who claim to include parents, students, and school employees, sued the school board in 2021 with the support of the conservative Pacific Legal Foundation.
Although the admissions policy for Thomas Jefferson appeared to be racially neutral on the surface, they claimed the board adopted it to lower the number of Asian American students at the school. The board refuted these accusations.
In 2020, the board updated the policy in response to concerns raised by several board members and others regarding the school’s lack of socioeconomic, regional, and racial diversity.
Before this, most of the students at the school came from a select group of “feeder” middle schools located in the wealthier areas of the county.
However, it raised the minimum grade-point average and did away with the requirement for standardized testing in favor of a system that reserved seats for the top students from each public middle school in the area, giving extra credit to students from underrepresented schools and those who qualify for free school meals.
Before the policy’s revision, 73% of admitted students were Asian Americans; however, that percentage fell to 54% in 2021, 60% in 2022, and 62% in 2023. There was an increase in female students, students from low-income households (including Asian American households), and students from other racial groups.
“Schools should evaluate students as individuals, not groups based on racial identity. That kind of group stereotyping is morally wrong and undermines the American promise of opportunity for all,” Pacific Legal Foundation lawyer Joshua Thompson said, adding that by rejecting this appeal, the Supreme Court missed an opportunity to end what he called race-based discrimination in kindergarten through high school admissions.
Judge Claude Hilton of the United States District Court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, citing board member comments bemoaning the low enrollment of black and Hispanic students.
The 4th Circuit overturned Hilton’s ruling, concluding that the board had not intended to discriminate against or have a disproportionate effect on Asian American students.
Alito, in his dissent, called the 4th Circuit’s decision “a virus that may spread if not promptly eliminated,” adding that it “effectively licenses official actors to discriminate against any racial group with impunity as long as that group continues to perform at a higher rate than other groups.”
