Watercolor World Map

Organizational Membership

Connect to the world of higher education

With AACRAO membership you'll be connected to more than 11,000 members from institutions around the world. Facilitate your professional development by attending discounted meetings, gaining complimentary subscriptions to our College & University journal and more.

Why should you join? State higher education coordinating boards, higher education associations, accrediting bodies and international ministries of education and more can collaborate with our members and lend their voices to discussions about practices in the field. 

Annual Membership Price: $710

Requirements: YOU MUST BE A PUBLIC SECTOR AND/OR A PRIVATE NON-PROFIT ASSOCIATION WHOSE INTERESTS ARE CLOSELY ALIGNED TO AACRAO.  

Develop Professionally

Organizational Membership - Professional Development


Professional Competencies

Work on your skills like change management, technical knowledge and professional development and contributions to the field. We have the tools for you.

Online Learning

Strategic enrollment management. Admissions & recruitment. Transfer & articulation.  AACRAO regularly partners with organizations to hold joint discussions. No matter what your focus is, our webinars are loved by our members, and can raise the profile of your work. 

Take the next step in your career

AACRAO's Career Navigator is a wealth of job postings and resources for training. 

Gain Recognition

Intl Students - Recognition


Get Published

AACRAO's professional journals College & University and SEM Quarterly are always accepting articles and have a wide circulation base.

Research Opportunities

Leverage the expertise of our over 11,000 members and contribute to one of the premier sources of practice related research within the global higher education community. 

Join a committee

Do work you're passionate about, with support and mentoring from fellow members. From Caucuses to specialized topics, it's all one community, no matter where in the world your institution is located. 


AACRAO_Connect_logo_final_transparentbkg

AACRAO's bi-weekly professional development e-newsletter

Field Notes: Reforming College Admissions - The SCOTUS Decision and Future Paths

Oct 16, 2023, 15:09 PM
legacy id :
Summary : Exploring the complex intersection of law, politics, and college admissions.
Url :

By Dr.Tara KentDirector, Office of the Registrar, AMDA New York Campus

"Field Notes" is a regular Connect column covering practical and philosophical issues facing admissions and registrar professionals. The columns are authored by various AACRAO members. If you have an idea for a column and would like to contribute, please send an email to the editor at communications@aacrao.org.

When it comes to the intersection of politics and higher education, individuals' allegiances may align with political parties depending on what they perceive as most beneficial for their institution and the students they serve. For instance, consider the reaction of those who work at career colleges whose graduates earn certificates rather than a bachelor's degree after they had a chance to digest the Biden administration's final ruling on the gainful employment guidelines and the associated metrics, which carry the potential consequence of financial aid removal from institutions that do not meet the new requirements. In response to these developments, the administrators at these career colleges take a sharp turn towards the right on the political spectrum. Conversely, those working for institutions that serve a substantial population of underserved students may veer left should the Executive Branch advocate for an increase in the Pell Grant. Irrespective of one's stance on Affirmative Action, the entire landscape of higher education now finds itself at the crossroads of the SCOTUS decision. Here, they are poised to be overtaken by the Committee on Education and Workforce, which is accelerating at full speed to analyze data and craft legislation designed to uphold the court's ruling. 

The Hearing

On September 28, 2023, Chairman Burgess Owens (R-UT) presided over a hearing titled "The Impact of SCOTUS's Decision on Race-Based Admissions on University Policies." Unless one has been entirely disconnected from recent events, it is evident that the Supreme Court's ruling on Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard and Students for Fair Admissions v. UNC, declaring race-based admissions unconstitutional and in violation of the Constitution and Civil Rights Act has sent shockwaves throughout admissions offices. This ruling has compelled institutions to reevaluate their approaches to student admissions. The Committee featured four witnesses for testimony, none of whom were administrators from higher education. Paradoxically, the hearing raised more questions than it answered regarding the recommendations put forth by the witnesses and the guidance that colleges and universities can expect to receive to align with the ruling.

Witness Testimonies

The first witness, Ms. Alison Somin, a Legal Fellow with the Pacific Legal Foundation (PLF), emphasized three points in her testimony. She underscored the importance of admitting applicants based on their individual merit rather than considering race as a factor. She stressed the need to prevent colleges and state governments from disregarding the established rulings, advocating for ongoing litigation with support from non-profit organizations like PLF to hold institutions and state governments accountable to these rulings. She also recommended the elimination of proxies and called on the Department of Education to provide clear guidelines to ensure that institutions understand their obligations under these rulings.

The second witness, Mr. Yukong Mike Zhao, Founding President of the Asian American Coalition for Education, also voiced concerns about proxies and the lack of guidance from the Department of Education. He suggested that admissions offices prioritize applicants based on the needs of their programs. He proposed that standardized testing should play a major role in college admissions and recommended that applicants withhold their demographic and identifying information from admissions advisors.

The third witness, Mr. David Hinojosa, Director of the Education Opportunities Project at the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, took a different stance by expressing support for Affirmative Action. He reminded Congress of its commitment to 'unity, opportunity, and justice for all' and urged them to increase the amount and expand the eligibility of the Pell Grant. He called for an investigation into legacy admissions and the dismantling of systemic barriers. He advocated for grant funding to analyze and implement race-neutral programs aimed at advancing equitable opportunities and the elimination of standardized tests. 

The final witness, Mr. Delano Squires, a Research Fellow at the Richard and Helen DeVos Center for Life, Religion, and Family at the Heritage Foundation, centered his recommendations on K-12 education preparation. He endorsed greater education choices, such as educational savings accounts, pathways to challenge gifted students, offering external specialized programs to gifted students, and implementing changes in policies and family structures to promote stable marriages.

More Questions

After traversing the path of 'Witness Testimony,' one may find themselves inundated with questions, a list seemingly more extended than the cross-country journey from Seattle to Boston on I-90, which takes approximately six days. Two of these inquiries loom large: What is next, and how will any of these recommendations translate into actionable legislation? One proposal, for instance, to reinstate standardized testing in all schools, could bring unprecedented lawsuits like the 2020 case against the University of California. 

Additionally, admitting applicants as individuals, as one of the witnesses suggested, would need to be clearly defined, as there could be confusion if there is a requirement for applicants to conceal their name and demographics, which essentially removes the applicants' individuality, causing them to appear as bots to admissions advisors. Furthermore, the assumption that one's name or demographic information inherently signifies one's race represents a form of bias. This hearing casts a shadow of uncertainty over how the SCOTUS decision is shaping admissions policies and hinted at the possibility of biased recommendations becoming woven into the fabric of future legislation governing college admissions.

Conclusion

Admissions advisors need clear, practical, and measurable criteria for student admissions. Although research underscores the positive influence of family support on academic success, it would be excessively optimistic to believe that Congress could universally instill these values in all families, thereby creating a level playing field for those seeking admission to elite universities, all without compromising civil rights.

The path ahead is fraught with uncertainty as we await the Committee's drafting of legislation. While uncertainty lingers about the decision's aftermath and its admissions impact, Chairman Owens was specific when he issued a stern warning to educational institutions in his statement: "So, to those at institutions who think the Supreme Court ruling is a 'pretty please' ask, this Committee will keep a close eye as the 2024 application process unfolds. Racism, hidden or overt, will not be tolerated by this oversight body."
Categories :
  • Admissions and Recruitment
Tags :
  • Affirmative Action Challenge
  • supreme court
Illustration of an individual navigating a labyrinth.
Related people

Build Connections

International Membership - Build Connections


Attend a event

Our meetings, workshops, and international institutes are designed instruct, educate and foster collaboration between professionals and institutions. Find one that works for you.

Learn More

Member Only Benefits

AACCRAO_Transcript-purple

AACRAO's weekly e-newsletter delivering policy and industry news

Member Login Required

Questions? Contact us at membership@aacrao.org or (202) 355-1040