The U.S. Supreme Court declined to consider an appeal about Boston's temporary high school admissions criteria, which were alleged to racially discriminate against White and Asian students.
Fox News reported that the U.S. Supreme Court opted out of hearing an appeal by the Boston Parent Coalition for Academic Excellence this Monday. The coalition had challenged an admissions policy temporarily adopted by three prestigious Boston high schools due to the disruptions caused by the COVID-19 pandemic.
The disputed policy redirected the admissions approach for Boston Latin School, Boston Latin Academy, and the John D. O'Bryant School of Mathematics and Science from an exam-based criterion to one evaluating grade point averages and student ZIP codes.
The need to adapt during the pandemic resulted in significant changes to the traditional process used to admit students.
The temporary measure, implemented for the academic year 2020, was met with outcry as it led to a stark decline in the number of White and Asian students admitted to these schools. Critics of the policy saw this as an unintended consequence of trying to ensure continuity during the emergency created by the onset of the pandemic.
This led to a lawsuit initiated by the Boston Parent Coalition for Academic Excellence in February 2021, representing 14 anonymous students affected by the changes. Their argument lay on the ground that this adaptation was discriminatory, sparking a legal battle that would ascend all the way to the highest court.
Lower courts, however, sided with the school system, ruling that the admission criteria were racially neutral. In their view, the circumstances of the pandemic necessitated extraordinary measures, measures which were not intended to be sustained beyond the immediate crisis.
The Boston School Committee defended its position by pointing out that this policy was a one-off strategy, not intended as a permanent shift in the way Boston’s top schools admit students. By the 2022-2023 academic year, the schools had reverted to their standard, exam-based policy for admissions.
Arguments over the temporariness of the policy played a significant role in the courts. Justice Neil Gorsuch specifically noted in his explanation for the Supreme Court's decision not to hear the case that the policy's temporary nature and its discontinuation effectively diminished the need for their review.
His statement further elaborated that there was no indication the city planned to reinstate the previous policy. "The parents and students do not challenge Boston’s new policy, nor do they suggest that the city is simply biding its time, intent on reviving the old policy. Strictly speaking, those developments may not moot this case. But, to my mind, they greatly diminish the need for our review," Gorsuch explained.
Though the majority declined to take up the case, Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito presented a dissenting view. Alito, in particular, criticized the foundational philosophy of the policy, suggesting it perpetuated what he perceived as race-based affirmative action, which he believed to be inherently flawed.
"I would reject root and branch this dangerously distorted view of disparate impact. The Court, however, fails to do so today, so I must respectfully dissent," Alito expressed.
As the policy is no longer active and with the affected students having undergone new admissions processes or having already graduated, the practical implications of the Supreme Court's decision seem limited.
However, the case underscores the complex interplay between educational policy adjustments in crisis situations and broader issues of racial and socioeconomic equity.
Ultimately, the Boston School Committee remarks, "The same students were eligible to apply again in 2022 under a new process that they do not challenge, and (if they applied) were either unsuccessful or already admitted," highlight the transitory nature of the discussions surrounding the policy.