Racial preferences in college admissions were upheld by the Supreme Court in Grutter v. Bollinger because the Court accepted the University of Michigan’s assertion that certain educational benefits allegedly derive from having a diverse student body. The Court deemed such alleged educational benefits to be a “compelling state interest” justifying racial discrimination in college admissions. Indeed, Harvard justifies its racially discriminatory admissions policy, currently before the Court in SFFA v. Harvard, on that basis.
But as previously noted, a significant and growing number of colleges segregate — or promote and enable segregation. These efforts range from segregated dorm rooms to scholarships to recreational facilities to campus activities.
Ironically, these instances of racial separation profoundly undermine the legal rationale for racially discriminatory admissions. Obviously, the ostensible benefits derived from a diverse student body cannot be obtained if student interactions are limited or prevented by racial segregation.
Many, if not most, understood Grutter’s “compelling state interest” analysis to be a specious effort to justify racial discrimination in admissions. Twenty years later, the rampant segregation in which colleges are engaged confirms that understanding.