Wondering how the Supreme Court’s recent ruling on college admissions might change the face of educational diversity? Navigate this complex issue with Tammy Cowart, UT Tyler Associate Professor of Accounting, Finance, and Business Law. She weighs in on the implications, dissects the differing views among the justices and explores the potential impact on diversity within campuses. Cowart’s insights open up the conversation on how the ruling might shape the future of higher education.
Mike Landess: For UT Tyler Radio, I’m Mike Landess. The U.S. Supreme Court picked the last week of June to drop the proverbial Other Shoe on affirmative action in college admissions. It ruled that race cannot be a factor when deciding to admit a college applicant. UT System Board of Regents Chairman Kevin Eltife responded by saying, “We are not at all surprised by the ruling.” He went on to say, “We fully expected this and will follow the ruling accordingly.” Here to discuss the finer points of this ruling and what it means, is UT Tyler Associate Professor of Accounting, Finance and Business Law Tammy Cowart. Welcome.
Tammy Cowart: Thank you, Mike.
Mike Landess: Harvard and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill were at the center of this Supreme Court case, but even as the UT Regents Chair says, we will follow the ruling accordingly, most every college and university in the country has implemented affirmative action efforts differently. There’s been no rule book.
Tammy Cowart: There has not been. There is no real consistency. There’s no requirement as to how universities can consider various factors when admitting students. So that’s very true. It’s very interesting. You know, some of the reporting that I’ve seen, and in fact in the Court’s own opinion, you know, they acknowledge that truly we’re only talking about probably a couple of dozen schools who are very highly competitive. For the vast majority of other colleges and universities, this will affect their practices to a lesser extent.
Mike Landess: Conservatives are cheering the ruling, of course. Liberals are calling it a significant setback for equality, of course. And then the division shows up at the Supreme Court, among the justices. Clarence Thomas, the newest justice Katanji Brown sparring with each other. Now, no punches were pulled by either one of them.
Tammy Cowart: No, and that’s very true, and they both have acknowledged that they were beneficiaries of affirmative action policies at universities. And then again, you know, when we say, OK, well, so you know, you just get into the university where you, you know, are qualified to be admitted. There are elite universities which do tend to give advantages, and the Supreme Court is one. Eight of the nine justices graduated from one of three law schools in the country. Eight of the nine, and that’s not an anomaly right now. That has been consistent over decades, actually. So then it does matter where you’re admitted in terms of what your career path is. And so maybe the larger question is in terms of where do we recruit people at the highest level of the court system, or maybe corporate America, you know? Whatever it may be, maybe that needs to be examined, maybe we need to look at that and say, OK, the highest quality students are not just at these very small, elite universities. Maybe that’s what happens with this ruling.
Mike Landess: Well, I thought it was interesting. One of the most popular TV series to come along in a long time was “Suits,” which is the story of a young man who did not even go to law school but was so bright and had a photographic memory and was very, very clever and went to work for a law firm that only hired from Harvard.
Tammy Cowart: Yes, I mean, that really is a thing. That’s really a thing. And, by the way, I thought it was really interesting. You know, in a footnote, (Chief) Justice (John) Roberts specifically mentioned that they did not intend for this ruling to apply to the military academies. He mentions early in his opinion that this ruling does not apply to the military academies. So, Air Force Academy, West Point…
Mike Landess: Naval Academy.
Tammy Cowart: Naval Academy. Yes, of course. And he acknowledged in the footnote that there had been a brief that had been filed. They were not parties to the lawsuit, but a brief where, you know, upper officials, generals in the Department of Defense said that they have a very keen interest in making sure that they have a diverse force in their officer ranks. And so, I really think it is very interesting this particular case. I really think the court, even though we say, “OK, affirmative action is out the window,” I think the Court drew very kind of clear distinctions between what you can do and what you can’t. So, for example, they acknowledge, Justice Roberts in the majority opinion, acknowledged that universities absolutely have an interest in making sure that there’s a diverse student body. So, we do learn from each other. And we learn more from each other when we’re not very homogeneous, right, when we are exposed to, kind of that’s really kind of what we want in a college experience. We want to be exposed to kind of heterogeneous ideas: “You know what is something I’ve never thought of before, you know.”
Mike Landess: Or, I never thought of it that way.
Tammy Cowart: I never thought of it that way. But the Court said you have to have-they really kind of pointed out two things. One you know, even back 25 years ago, when the court originally said, OK, you can do this, in a case involving the University of Michigan called the Grutter case. The Court said, “We expect that this will eventually kind of level the playing field, so to speak, and so that this won’t need to be continued indefinitely, because eventually we’ll end up having kind of diverse student bodies.” So the Court always said there would be a sunset, and Justice Roberts talked about that. He said there’s nothing in either of the policies of these two universities that indicates that they are going to reach that sunset point, and so that was a really important point that the Court made.
Mike Landess: We did a lengthy interview with UT Tyler President Kirk Calhoun recently, and we touched on the DEI subject. He pointed out that of the 3,000+ institutions in the U.S., that virtually all of them have their own version of DEI programs. It’s never been a one-size-fits-all situation, but are you aware of any such programs, maybe other than the service academies, such that have had success or could be mirrored by other schools? Or is it back to the drawing board for everybody?
Tammy Cowart: Oh, that’s a great question, Mike. You know, I didn’t know this until yesterday, actually, and I started reading the opinion. Twenty, a little over 20 years ago, the state of California actually passed a proposition that outlawed affirmative action programs at state colleges and universities. So the University of California System, which is the largest system in the country, has been admitting students and attempting to diversify its student population without these affirmative action programs, which the Supreme Court has now said are prohibited. So I actually think the UCAL system would be a good model to look at, to say, OK, well, what have they done, you know, to be able to diversify their college and university student bodies without using a race-based system? So it’s been done; it’s been done.
Mike Landess: Our guest has been UT Tyler Associate Professor of Accounting, Finance and Business Law Tammy Cowart. To hear this interview again or to share it, go to KVUT.org. I’m Mike Landess for UT Tyler Radio.
Jeff Johnson: Thank you for listening to the UT Tyler Radio Podcast on 99.7 KVUT. If you’d like to hear this episode again, or if you missed a previous episode, find the UT Tyler Radio Podcast on your favorite podcast platform or click “podcasts” on our website, KVUT.org.
(Transcripts are automatically generated and may contain phonetic spellings and other spelling and punctuation errors. Grammar errors contained in the original recording are not typically corrected.)