Can race-neutral school admissions policies still discriminate? What’s at stake in the US Supreme Court’s Maryland school case

The US Supreme Court is preparing to examine a dispute that could influence how selective public schools assess students and defend their admissions policies against discrimination claims. At the centre of the case is a Maryland school system’s decision to replace traditional admissions criteria with academic screening followed by a lottery. A group of parents says the system disadvantages Asian-American students seeking places at four academically competitive middle schools in Montgomery County, near Washington, DC.

However, school administrators claim that the program is a racially neutral one and was introduced for the purpose of enhancing accessibility to advanced education.

Al Jazeera claims that the Supreme Court has agreed to review the parents' case regarding the question of whether there is enough evidence to suggest discrimination in order for the case to move forward.


Also Read | America's $1 trillion annual interest bill is growing as national debt surges, so why isn't the US facing a debt crisis like France?

It is still not up to the judges to decide whether or not the admissions policy is discriminatory. At this point, they should address the question of what kind of evidence must be provided by people challenging a race-neutral policy introduced by the government.

This difference can become crucial. While a policy doesn't have to mention race to create concerns about its impacts, inequality in outcomes doesn't necessarily indicate discrimination.

How Maryland changed the way students enter selective schools

Montgomery County implemented the new admissions process in the 2021-2022 academic year when the world was still grappling with the COVID-19 pandemic. This policy is famously known as the “Pandemic Plan” and saw a revision in how students were admitted into four magnet middle schools providing enhanced academic programs.

Here, the student is evaluated on his/her academic potential. Those eligible get to participate in the lottery to determine whether they get the specialised academic program in the magnet school or their regular schools.

Also Read | It survived for thousands of years, then suddenly fell: The mystery behind New Hampshire's 80-ton boulder

This admission process sought to ensure wider access but has been criticised due to the potential barrier that the evaluation poses even before the student reaches the lottery stage.

As Al Jazeera reported, the parents challenging the policy say Asian-American students are concentrated in high-performing, lower-poverty elementary schools.

This is because they feel that comparing test scores between students based on their families having similar levels of income can influence who would qualify for the lottery.

The issue raised by these parents is the fact that this system might discriminate against those students whose performances are evaluated relative to a specific group as opposed to a single standard.

These officials deny discrimination, saying that the whole process is a colourblind lottery since it does not violate the Constitution.

This controversy goes beyond the lottery system itself and rather questions the ability of testing standards which qualify one for the lottery to be discriminatory.

Why the parents’ lawsuit was dismissed before reaching the Supreme Court

The case was heard previously by lower courts. US District Judge Paula Xinis threw out the lawsuit in 2022, ruling that Asian-American students had been accepted into the magnet schools at rates higher than their proportion in the total pool of applicants.

The lack of sufficient evidence of the intent behind the policy to discriminate was another critical factor in dismissing the suit, according to Al Jazeera.

This became a significant point of resistance for the Association for Education Fairness, the group suing in the case. They argue that using the makeup of the applicant pool may fail to capture discrimination that happened before that stage.

The association alleged in their appeal that a government agency might be able to satisfy a racial quota without mentioning race in its policy and then shield itself from any criticism with admissions numbers proving Asian-Americans were not underrepresented.

The school district has also argued against a hearing, requesting the Supreme Court not to resurrect the case. They argue that the selection process is neutral and does not discriminate against students based on race.

It should be noted that accepting this case for hearing does not mean that the Supreme Court agrees with the claims of the parents. In fact, what this implies is whether the claimants have provided enough evidence to proceed with the case.

This procedural matter is important because it will decide the way in which families go about challenging admission processes that seem to be neutral at face value.

What the Supreme Court ruling could mean for public education

It will also determine whether, in cases of discrimination based on a race-neutral practice, it is necessary to show that the group had a disparate impact to prove discriminatory intent.

Such a ruling may influence the way in which such cases will be tried, especially in cases where school districts employ a certain screening process, lotteries or other procedures that seek to expand access to certain selective programs.

If the Supreme Court rules in favour of the parents, then the case will go back to the lower courts where it will continue its proceedings. This does not necessarily mean that Montgomery County engaged in discriminatory practices against Asian-American students.

In contrast, if the court sides with the school district, it would emphasise the necessity of establishing an evident connection between the admissions policy and the discriminatory intention.

As one can see from the article on Al Jazeera, this lawsuit should be seen in the broader context of US discussion on race, equal opportunity, and access to good schools.

It is necessary for schools to figure out the way of selecting students with academic potential without violating any laws, but different families have different opinions regarding the Montgomery County policy.

This decision may also impact the way school districts describe the purpose and impact of their admissions policy. Although the racial component is not explicitly present in the policy, the logic of its creation and the evidence used to support it can become the matter of investigation.

Arguments are expected to be heard in the upcoming months, and the decision is expected to be delivered in June. For now, it is still an open question: when there is no race in government policy, how do you prove its discrimination?