Supreme Court passes on case alleging elite Virginia school discriminates against Asian-Americans
The Supreme Court announced Tuesday it would not hear a case alleging an elite public high school in Northern Virginia discriminates against prospective Asian-American students, drawing an impassioned dissent from Justice Samuel Alito.
The justices’ refusal to consider the petition against the Fairfax County School Board signaled unwillingness to immediately expand on their landmark decision last year that outlawed race-based affirmative action at most US colleges and universities.
The case centered on Thomas Jefferson High School for Science and Technology in Alexandria, one of the highest-ranked secondary schools in the country.
Coalition for TJ, a group representing parents of prospective students, had argued that the Fairfax board had adopted an admissions policy in December 2020 that unlawfully penalized Asian-American students based on race.
The policy was upheld in May of last year by a divided three-judge panel of the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals.
“The Court’s willingness to swallow the aberrant decision [by the Fourth Circuit] is hard to understand. We should wipe the decision off the books, and because the Court refuses to do so, I must respectfully dissent,” Alito wrote in his blistering 10-page opinion, joined by Justice Clarence Thomas.
“What the Fourth Circuit majority held, in essence, is that intentional racial discrimination is constitutional so long as it is not too severe. This reasoning is indefensible, and it cries out for correction,” Alito argued.
The controversial policy, as Alito described, reserves 450 of the 550 seats in each incoming class by dividing them among local middle schools.
The remaining 100 seats are open to a general pool of applicants, who are evaluated by “their grades, a ‘portrait sheet,’ a problem-solving essay, and ‘Experience Factors'” — which include eligibility for free or reduced-price school meals and proficiency in learning English.
“This new policy had an immediate effect,” Alito wrote.
“The percentage of white, Hispanic, and black students increased, while the percentage and number of Asian American students sharply dropped. In prior years, the offer rate for Asian American students had hovered between 65 and 75 [%] of the school’s total offers. Under the new policy, Asian Americans received 54.36 [%] of the offers. In fact, even though the entering class expanded by 64 seats, the number of seats offered to Asian Americans decreased by 56.”
While the elite school claimed its new policy was meant to “mitigate socioeconomic obstacles faced by students of all races,” critics accused it of being a ploy to scale down Asian-American representation.
In his dissent, Alito cited a June 2020 email from the school’s principal in which she complained “that the school did ‘not reflect the racial composition in [the Fairfax County Public Schools],'” while also noting that a school board member “wrote in an email that she was ‘angry and disappointed’ at TJ’s admissions results and that she expected ‘intentful [sic] action forthcoming.’”
“As far as the Fourth Circuit was concerned, the Board could have adopted a policy designed solely to reduce the Asian American offer rate and still evaded liability,” Alito argued.
“The holding below 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.”
“Today, the American Dream was dealt a blow, but we remain committed to protecting the values of merit, equality, and justice — and we will prevail for the future of our children and for the nation we love and embrace,” Asra Nomani, co-founder of Coalition for TJ, said in a statement.
Coalition for TJ was represented by the Pacific Legal Foundation, whose senior attorney Joshua Thompson said the court had “missed an important opportunity to end race-based discrimination in K-12 admissions.”
“Discrimination against students based on their race is not only ethically wrong but also a clear violation of the Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection,” Thompson said.
It was unclear whether of the other justices would have taken the case.
Four justices need to agree to review a case for it to be taken up.
