SCIENCE science.org 4 FEBRUARY 2022 • VOL 375 ISSUE 6580 473EDITORIAL
A
s science struggles to correct systemic racism
in the laboratory and throughout academia
in the United States, external forces press on,
making it even more difficult to achieve equi-
ty on all fronts—including among scientists.
The latest example is the decision by the US
Supreme Court to hear cases brought against
Harvard University and the University of North Car-
olina (UNC) at Chapel Hill challenging their right
to use race as a factor in undergraduate admissions.
It is sometimes easy for scientists to let colleagues
in other disciplines engage in a debate like this, but
the dismantling of race-conscious admissions would
deal another blow to equity in science. The Supreme
Court has protected affirmative action in the past,
but the Court’s current major-
ity of conservative justices could
mean the end of the program.
This is no time for the scientific
community to stay silent. It is a
crucial moment for science to
mobilize against this latest as-
sault on diversity.
For more than 50 years in the
United States, colleges and uni-
versities have been using multiple
criteria to select undergraduates,
recognizing that a diverse student
body is essential for the university
to achieve its mission. I asked Pe-
ter Henry, the WR Berkley Profes-
sor of Economics and Finance at
New York University, about the
economic data on the matter. “Affirmative action cor-
rects a market failure,” he said. “Talent is broadly dis-
tributed across the US population, but opportunity is
not.” The process gives deserving students a chance that
they might not otherwise have, adding excellence to the
higher education system. It also acknowledges that not
all students have an equal opportunity to excel at objec-
tive measures like standardized tests and grades, and it
levels the playing field by giving students and universi-
ties the chance to spotlight other important attributes
and factors in the admissions process.
I know something about this struggle because I was
one of the chancellors of UNC who oversaw the admis-
sions policies in question. When the Supreme Court
took up the case of Abigail Fisher versus the Univer-
sity of Texas at Austin, I submitted an amicus brief pre-
pared by UNC’s law dean and general counsel. Fisher,
a white student, challenged the university’s consider-ation of race in its undergraduate admission process.
Denied admission in 2008, she argued that the use of
race in this manner violated her constitutional right to
equal protection. In the brief, it was shown convincingly
that students chosen for admission based on a range
of criteria, including race, ethnicity, and socioeconomic
background, fared better than those chosen solely on
the basis of standardized test scores and high school
grades. This commitment to providing access to higher
education has now landed UNC in the courts.
All of this is bad for science. Failure to enroll a diverse
undergraduate population has already excluded out-
standing people from science, and limiting affirmative
action will only make matters worse. But much more
insidious are the messages these fights continue to
send. It’s bad enough that science
faculty haven’t continually up-
dated their methods of teaching to
ones known to be more inclusive.
Likewise for universities and their
processes for faculty hiring, pro-
motion, and tenure that sustain in-
equity. Now, on top of all that, the
highest court in the United States
is going to engage in a highly pub-
lic debate over whether many of
the country’s potential future stu-
dents of science can enter the sci-
entific community, continuing the
perpetual message of exclusion.
The cases currently before the
court involve claims that Asian
Americans are penalized for their
race in admissions decisions at Harvard and UNC. As
Jennifer Lee, Professor of Sociology at Columbia Uni-
versity, points out in the Editor’s Blog this week, this
misrepresents Asian American sentiment: 70% of Asian
Americans support affirmative action, and fewer than
10% have reported being passed over for college admis-
sions. As Lee notes, the cases before the court will not
address real anti-Asian bias on college campuses.
What can scientists do to counteract all of this? Study
the data showing that talent is broadly distributed and
then use this evidence to help fight exclusive practices.
It’s also important to emphasize that grades and stan-
dardized test scores alone are insufficient selection
criteria. But more importantly, show up this go-round.
Students deserve to see science faculty rise up alongside
colleagues in the humanities to support affirmative ac-
tion. That will be a powerful message of welcome.
–H. Holden ThorpScience needs affirmative action
H. Holden Thorp
Editor-in-Chief,
Science journals.
[email protected];
@hholdenthorp10.1126/science.abo
PHOTO: CAMERON DAVIDSON
“...dismantling
of race-conscious
admissions
would deal another
blow to
equity in science.”