October 06, 2023
House Hearing Reveals Political Divide on Affirmative Action
The House Subcommittee on Higher Education and Workforce Development examined how the Supreme Court’s decision on race-conscious admissions is shaping policies at colleges and universities in a hearing that revealed the continued political divide over affirmative action.
During the hearing, subcommittee chair Rep. Owen Burgess (R-UT) praised the Court’s ruling for “grant[ing] us a major win for equal opportunity and meritocracy” and warned colleges and universities that the committee would be watching to ensure that the Court’s decision is adhered to faithfully.
Rep. Bobby Scott (D-VA), ranking member of the full committee, agreed that meritocracy is important, but noted, “The problem is the current system is not based solely on merit, and without policies to counterbalance the discriminatory factors, our system will remain discriminatory.”
Several witnesses for the majority criticized the Biden Administration’s guidance on affirmative action, alleging that it sanctions activities prohibited under the ruling. Alison Somin, a legal fellow with the Pacific Legal Foundation, was particularly critical of race-neutral preferences that serve as a proxy for underlying discrimination and noted that her organization, as well as others, are pursuing litigation on this issue. In contrast, the minority witness, David Hinjosa with the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under the Law, noted that racial inequality persists in higher education and urged Congress to take steps to remedy those inequalities via increased funding and other legislative initiatives.
During the hearing, subcommittee chair Rep. Owen Burgess (R-UT) praised the Court’s ruling for “grant[ing] us a major win for equal opportunity and meritocracy” and warned colleges and universities that the committee would be watching to ensure that the Court’s decision is adhered to faithfully.
Rep. Bobby Scott (D-VA), ranking member of the full committee, agreed that meritocracy is important, but noted, “The problem is the current system is not based solely on merit, and without policies to counterbalance the discriminatory factors, our system will remain discriminatory.”
Several witnesses for the majority criticized the Biden Administration’s guidance on affirmative action, alleging that it sanctions activities prohibited under the ruling. Alison Somin, a legal fellow with the Pacific Legal Foundation, was particularly critical of race-neutral preferences that serve as a proxy for underlying discrimination and noted that her organization, as well as others, are pursuing litigation on this issue. In contrast, the minority witness, David Hinjosa with the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under the Law, noted that racial inequality persists in higher education and urged Congress to take steps to remedy those inequalities via increased funding and other legislative initiatives.
For more information, please contact:
Jody Feder