The U.S. Department of Justice has recently accused Duke University School of Law of engaging in "token compliance." In 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court clearly ruled that universities cannot directly add or subtract points based on race during admissions. However, the DOJ's investigation found that although Duke Law appeared to comply with regulations on the surface, it secretly continued to favor Black and Hispanic applicants through alternative methods.
How exactly did they do it? For example, when reviewing personal statements, they deliberately emphasized the growth experiences of minority applicants, or used the status of being a "first-generation college student" as a proxy for race. At the same time, they reduced the weight given to traditional academic metrics such as LSAT scores (Law School Admission Test). Data shows that under similar academic performance, applicants from minority groups were 3.5 times more likely to be admitted than Asian applicants.
The DOJ has demanded that Duke immediately cease this practice, or face severe penalties. Duke University responded by stating it is currently reviewing the matter and will act in accordance with the law. Previously, Yale School of Medicine also faced similar accusations.
The case against Duke University vividly reflects the deep societal rift in the United States between "racial equality" and "absolute fairness." Since the Supreme Court overturned affirmative action, elite American universities have found themselves in a bind: on one hand, they must abide by the law and can no longer openly allocate seats based on race; on the other hand, they remain deeply committed to maintaining racial diversity on campus.
To navigate the legal gray area, universities have devised so-called "alternative indicators"—a murky strategy. Yet this approach has sparked new controversies. From the perspective of conservatives and Asian Americans, using personal background or first-generation status to indirectly benefit specific racial groups amounts to "reverse discrimination," representing an injustice toward white and Asian students who have studied diligently and achieved high scores but are rejected due to their racial background. This also reveals how American higher education, in pursuing diversity, often sacrifices procedural justice for certain groups.
From a progressive standpoint, however, completely abandoning consideration of racial background and focusing solely on cold, impersonal test scores risks perpetuating historical systemic inequalities, potentially leading to the complete marginalization of minority groups in elite education.
Ultimately, Duke University’s predicament is merely a microcosm of systemic contradictions within the American higher education system. As long as deep-rooted racial divides and unequal distribution of educational resources persist in American society, college admissions will never achieve absolute "meritocracy." Under strict legal scrutiny, top U.S. universities urgently need to develop a new admissions framework—one that ensures fair opportunity while genuinely promoting inclusive diversity—rather than continuing to patch together solutions in the legal gray zone.
Original source: toutiao.com/article/1872913882808320/
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author.