Columbia Law School has found itself embroiled in controversy after accusations arose that it attempted to bypass the Supreme Court’s ban on affirmative action. The school reportedly introduced a new requirement on its website, stating that all applicants were obligated to submit a 90-second “video statement” as part of their application process. The statement was said to provide additional insights into the applicants’ personal strengths. However, this requirement was swiftly removed from the website after the Washington Free Beacon made inquiries.
The law school clarified that the video statements would not be mandatory for the Fall 2024 J.D. application, scheduled for release in September. Columbia Law School acknowledged that the inclusion of the video statement requirement had been an error, albeit without clarifying whether it would remain an optional component in the future.
Interestingly, while the law school had previously implemented a pilot program requiring transfer applicants to submit video statements from May, this new extension of the requirement to all applicants was noted to have appeared on the school’s website after the Supreme Court’s recent ruling on race-based admissions in June.
Edward Blum, the founder of Students for Fair Admissions, a group instrumental in the legal challenge that resulted in the Supreme Court’s decision, criticized the video requirement. Blum suggested that the requirement seemed like an attempt to evade the provisions of the Civil Rights Act’s Title VI. He questioned the necessity of a 90-second video when a written statement could potentially serve the same purpose.
Build the team of your dreams – submit your job openings with BCG Attorney Search.
Legal experts weighed in on the situation, expressing their reservations about the newly introduced video requirement. David Bernstein, a George Mason Law School professor, noted that such a requirement could serve as a contingency plan if legal constraints prevented inquiries into an applicant’s race.
The Supreme Court’s recent ruling on affirmative action played a pivotal role in shaping the context of this controversy. Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority of six justices, ruled against the admissions programs of Harvard and the University of North Carolina, deeming them incompatible with the Equal Protection Clause. The Court concluded that these programs lacked clear objectives justifying the use of race, perpetuated negative racial stereotypes, and lacked defined endpoints.
However, the ruling did not entirely preclude universities from considering an applicant’s experiences related to race. Chief Justice Roberts explicitly stated that universities could still assess how an applicant’s life had been affected by their racial background, emphasizing that applicants should be evaluated as individuals rather than primarily on the basis of their race.
The Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. presented a cert petition that highlighted disparities in acceptance rates among different racial groups. The petition suggested that an African American applicant in a lower academic decile had a greater likelihood of acceptance compared to an Asian American applicant in a higher decile. Similarly, it indicated that an Asian American student in a lower decile faced a significantly low acceptance rate.
As Columbia Law School navigates this controversy, questions remain about the future trajectory of the video submission requirement and its alignment with legal standards set forth by the Supreme Court’s ruling on affirmative action. The broader implications of this situation raise discussions about the limits of universities’ efforts to evaluate applicants holistically while adhering to legal frameworks that ensure equal treatment and non-discrimination in admissions processes.
Don’t be a silent ninja! Let us know your thoughts in the comment section below.
