茄子视频

Get stories like this delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for The 74 Newsletter

The Supreme Court has turned down challenging a COVID-era admissions policy meant to racially and geographically diversify three highly selective Boston public schools.

While the policy has since been replaced, a group of white and Asian parents sued the district, claiming that although it appeared to be race neutral, in practice it disproportionately harmed them and violated their rights under the Equal Protection Clause. The families were seeking damages, as well as spots at the schools for five students who argued they would have been accepted under the pre-COVID policy. 

The decision, handed down earlier this month, lets stand a lower court鈥檚 ruling that the policy did not violate the rights of white and Asian students. It was closely watched for signs of how eager the high court might be to apply to K-12 admissions elements of its landmark 2023 decision overturning affirmative action in higher education.

In a five-page dissent, justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas said that in declining to hear the case, the court 鈥渞efused to correct a glaring constitutional error that threatens to perpetuate race-based affirmative action in defiance of鈥� that earlier case, Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President & Fellows of Harvard College and SFFA v. University of North Carolina.

Writing in favor of the decision, Justice Neil Gorsuch said the fact that the policy is no longer in place at least partially convinced him it was unnecessary to hear the case. That being said, he cautioned against reading into his reasoning an approval of the lower court鈥檚 decision and encouraged future judges to consider the concerns raised in his fellow justices鈥� dissent. 

Advocacy organizations in favor of race-conscious policies considered the court鈥檚 decision a victory.

鈥淓ver since the U.S. Supreme Court鈥檚 decision in the Harvard affirmative action case, right-wing groups have unsuccessfully tried to extend its reach to challenge diversity, equity, and inclusion,鈥� Iv谩n Espinoza-Madrigal, executive director of said in a statement. 鈥淏ut today鈥檚 action by the Supreme Court sends a clear signal: there鈥檚 no appetite for extending the affirmative action decision beyond its narrow scope in college admissions.鈥�

Bethany Li, executive director of The Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund, was part of a multi-racial coalition of community organizations and families that joined Boston Public Schools in defending the policy. She felt it was particularly important for her organization to get involved to signal that the Asian community is not a monolith and that many support affirmative action.

鈥淎sian Americans wanted to very visibly show that we were standing in solidarity with the Black and Latino community on this issue,鈥� she said in an interview with The 74. 鈥淚 think there’s always this story that’s told that Asian Americans, for example, aren’t as supportive of affirmative action, or aren’t supportive of policies that increase diversity 鈥� and that’s actually not the case.鈥�

Li also argued that the challenge should have been dismissed long ago, since the policy is no longer in place. Under the new policy, students receive an admissions score 鈥� their GPA accounts for 70% and a standardized test for the remaining 30%. Students may be eligible to receive additional points if they meet specific criteria, like living in public housing or attending a school with an enrollment of 40% or more economically disadvantaged students.

Boston Public Schools did not respond to a request for comment.

Christopher Kieser, a senior attorney at Pacific Legal Foundation, which represented the plaintiffs, pushed back on the defunct-policy argument. 

鈥淚t was unfortunate to see that that was cited as a reason not to take the case,鈥� he said, adding that 鈥渁ctually this is a really good vehicle to address this question, because it’s a really concrete thing. There’s no future moving parts that are going to be coming up. We already know what happened, and all we’re asking for is to send it back and for the district court to be able to give a remedy to these five kids.鈥�

Historically, the three schools 鈥� Boston Latin Academy, the John D. O鈥橞ryant School of Mathematics and Science, and Boston Latin School 鈥� solely considered a student鈥檚 grades and a single standardized test score to determine admissions. Critics had long argued this criteria meant few Black and Latino students were selected for the coveted positions, and the Boston School Committee 鈥� the governing body for Boston Public Schools 鈥� began considering amendments to the policy in 2019.

These changes came to fruition in the 2021-22 school year, when Boston Public Schools temporarily suspended the entrance exam, and instead prioritized grades and geography. Under the new, two-part policy, one-fifth of seats were given to the top academic students across the city. For the remaining 80% of the entering class, geography was included in admissions criteria: each of the city鈥檚 zip codes had the opportunity to send their students with the highest GPAs, a move meant to diversify the schools. 

Advocates say the policy was a success: between the 2020鈥�21 and 2021鈥�22 school years, Black students increased from 14% to 23% of total enrollment and Latino students grew from 21% to 23%, while white students decreased from 40% to 31% and Asian students shrank from 21% to 18%. A lower court ruled that this did not disproportionately harm Asian and white students, since they were still overrepresented in the sought-after schools compared to their numbers in Boston Public Schools’ overall enrollment. In his dissent, Alito wrote, 鈥淭his reasoning is indefensible.鈥�

This type of case is not unique: earlier this year the firm representing the Asian and white families in Boston asked the high court to hear a similar one surrounding an admissions policy at a prestigious magnet school in The court ultimately denied that request as well, but the Pacific Legal Foundation is currently litigating other cases against admissions policies in Maryland鈥檚 Montgomery County Public Schools and in New York City. 

New York City鈥檚 eight specialized high schools 鈥� including Stuyvesant High School and The Bronx High School of Science 鈥� are of particular prominence. They almost exclusively only look at a student鈥檚 score on a single standardized test to determine admissions, which critics say drives lopsided demographics. Last spring, just 4.5% of offers went to Black students and 7.6% went to Hispanic students. In 2024, only 10 Black students were admitted to Stuyvesant’s first-year class of 744 in Lower Manhattan, according to reporting by  

In attempting to bring this latest batch of cases to the Supreme Court, plaintiffs were hoping to establish a similar precedent in K-12 schools as was laid out in Students for Fair Admissions.

鈥淥verall the precedent we want to set is that you can’t make race-based decisions in K-12 admissions 鈥� whether you do it through a proxy or you do it explicitly, it’s the same,鈥� said Kieser.

鈥淲e鈥檙e going to keep going as much as we can,鈥� he added. 鈥淟ike I said, we’ve had issues where it’s taken us 10, 12 times to ask the court to hear a case before they’ve done it. So it’s not over.鈥�

Did you use this article in your work?

We鈥檇 love to hear how The 74鈥檚 reporting is helping educators, researchers, and policymakers.