The Veiled Bigotry of Holistic Review – The American Spectator | USA News and PoliticsThe American Spectator

Perhaps your high school senior was like mine: a bulletin board featuring a list of aspirational universities, glossy pamphlets with students chatting beside stone buildings, and drawers of “spirit wear” from schools we toured.

My daughter earned a 4.2 GPA, a dozen academic and extracurricular awards, and meaningful involvement in church and community. Having worked in higher education for decades, I felt well-qualified to guide her college applications. But despite her achievements, our discussions included challenges she’d face as a white, middle-class applicant, and especially the looming specter of holistic review. (RELATED: Higher Education’s 7 Deadly Sins)

In 2003, the U.S. Supreme Court defined “holistic review” as a “highly individualized review of each applicant’s file, giving serious consideration to how an applicant might contribute to a diverse educational environment.” While definitions vary, its primary objective across universities and academic organizations is racial equity, achieved through admissions of “diverse” candidates. (RELATED: A Tale of Two Universities in Flyover Country and the Potential Downfall of Coastal Elite Schools)

The roots of the holistic review include Harvard’s attempts in the 1920s to limit Jewish student admissions. Joined by Columbia and Yale, Harvard officials targeted recruiting in regions with smaller Jewish populations while capping Jewish admissions. This practice led to other schools requiring essays, photographs, and additional materials to ensure the “right” students were admitted.

Today’s holistic review practices resemble these earlier methods. While universities list desirable student attributes on their websites, admissions committees don’t follow standardized rubrics or clear guidelines. Instead, their criteria are opaque, which often allows institutions to admit applicants based on undefined factors.

At postsecondary institutions where I was on faculty, admissions committee members received oral “guidance” from administrators regarding the importance of weighing candidates’ minority status. During meetings, it was considered collegial to remain silent and/or nod approvingly while members opined on candidates’ alignment with diversity and inclusion goals. Some even speculated on the perceived interplay between a particular candidate’s traits, the region that the candidate was from, and his/her admissibility. A DEI “czar” was present at these meetings, often serving as the arbiter of “fairness” and voting on candidates’ fit for programs, even in areas unrelated to his expertise. (RELATED: DEI and Marxism Destroy Merit and Excellence)

Are race-conscious admissions legal? The recent Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA) v. Harvard and SFFA v. University of North Carolina rulings declared race-based admissions at public institutions unconstitutional while still permitting the consideration of socioeconomic status and other non-academic factors. Consequently, documents from organizations like the College Board and the American Association of Medical Colleges (AAMC) have suggested methods to preserve the spirit of holistic review without overtly violating legal guidelines.

In Ohio, where I now reside, public universities routinely apply holistic review. For example, Miami University’s criteria weigh “life experiences,” “obstacles overcome,” and “socioeconomic status” alongside GPAs and test scores, explicitly in the name of “diversity.”

Ohio State University — Ohio’s worst holistic review culprit — abolished the use of test scores in undergraduate admissions decisions, following a national trend. While GPA is considered, many of OSU’s admission criteria are subjective, including “demonstrated personal qualities of collaboration, determination and resilience;” “high school performance if adversely affected by physical, mental or learning environment factors;” and “eligibility for and likelihood of benefiting from organized support services at Ohio State.”

Ergo, someone like my daughter — who enjoyed (relatively) well-adjusted, positive educational and personal experiences — may be contemplated in a relatively negative light by woke OSU admissions committee members.

Paradoxically, holistic review practices don’t always benefit their intended audience. College-educated parents of applicants often curate experiences that enhance admissions narratives, making it easier for their children to succeed in the process. Holistic review is also expensive: Two-thirds of schools using it require additional faculty and staff, increased student services, and expanded recruitment efforts to meet diversity goals. The result is higher costs for universities, and ultimately, students; including those from socioeconomically disadvantaged backgrounds, who are meant to benefit from these practices.

Furthermore, the purposeful admission of underrepresented minorities may not enrich classroom discussions as expected. A holistic review presumes that all admitted minority students bring distinct perspectives. But students selected from a pool of qualified non-minority applicants may also contribute diverse viewpoints. In short, people who look a certain way don’t necessarily think a certain way.

Moving forward, action to curb holistic review could include tightening the restrictions from the SFFA decisions or banning it outright. However, these efforts are complicated by the lack of clear guidelines on how admissions committees weigh various factors. This ambiguity makes enforcement difficult.

The best option may be an explicit ban on holistic review under the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. While it wouldn’t solve all the challenges of the admissions processes, a ban would reduce the practice’s prevalence and pressure institutions to increase transparency. It could also prompt more whistleblowing, leading to greater scrutiny of college admissions practices.

Dr. Steve Page is a medical writer, clinical educator, and clinical scientist who investigates the rehabilitation of people who have had a stroke. Catch up with Steve at www.StevePRehab.com.

READ MORE:

The Children of Elites Are in Trouble

Weimar America: The Threat Is on the Left

Progressives’ Aversion to Private Industry Does Not Extend to Private Universities