FOLLOW US

Justice Alito and Justice Thomas Stand Firm Against Boston's Controversial Admissions Policy

Three Crucial Points to Consider:

1. Supreme Court Standoff: The Supreme Court declined to review Boston’s pandemic-era admissions policy, which allegedly places White and Asian students at a disadvantage, leaving critics alarmed about unchecked DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) practices in education.
2. Justice Alito's Warning: Justice Samuel Alito, dissenting, declared that ignoring these challenges risks allowing constitutional errors to “metastasize,” underscoring the need to address claims of racial bias now.
3. A Precedent in Question: The decision leaves unresolved questions about whether DEI-focused admissions policies violate the Fourteenth Amendment and signal a critical moment for equal protection rights nationwide.

By Samuel A. Lopez – USA Herald

[BOSTON, Massachusetts] - The U.S. Supreme Court declined Monday to review Boston’s allegedly discriminatory COVID-19 pandemic-era admissions policy for three elite public schools, turning away the second case to challenge the use of DEI and race-neutral policies for admissions, placing other races at a significant disadvantage.

As someone who has spent decades navigating the intricacies of law, today’s Supreme Court decision hits close to home. The Court’s refusal to hear Boston Parent Coalition for Academic Excellence Corp. v. The School Committee for the City of Boston is, in my view, a missed opportunity to scrutinize policies that many believe distort the principles of fairness and equal protection under the law.

At its core, this case challenged Boston’s pandemic-era shift to a race-neutral admissions policy for three of its elite public schools. Criteria such as zip codes, family income, and GPA replaced standardized test scores, purportedly to promote racial and economic diversity. But critics argue these changes disproportionately harm White and Asian students, raising serious constitutional concerns.

The Constitutional Question: Equality or Evasion?

The Coalition asserted that Boston’s policy violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and Massachusetts law. They also claimed a disparate impact on White and Asian applicants, alleging the policy unfairly privileged other groups.

The First Circuit Court of Appeals disagreed, ruling that the Coalition failed to demonstrate discriminatory intent or significant disparate impact. This decision was upheld even after the discovery of troubling racial comments attributed to some School Committee members.

When the case reached the Supreme Court, Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas sounded the alarm in a blistering dissent. Alito’s remarks carried the weight of someone deeply concerned about the implications of ignoring this issue:

“We have now twice refused to correct a glaring constitutional error that threatens to perpetuate race-based affirmative action... I would reject root and branch this dangerously distorted view of disparate impact.”

Alito’s dissent underscores a pivotal question: Are courts enabling policies that erode constitutional protections for some groups under the guise of promoting diversity?