The Gift the Supreme Court Gave Admissions

Lawrence Alexander II, Associate Director of Admissions at Brown University

Lawrence Alexander II is a seasoned professional dedicated to fostering access, inclusion, and belonging across schools, corporations, and non-profits. With deep expertise in inclusive hiring, he has led over 30 retained searches and advised more than 50 organizations on best practices. A former Director of College Counseling for a decade, Alexander transitioned to Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Belonging (DEIB) work, setting the standard in consulting for associations, boards, school leaders, and college admissions teams. Beyond education, he has partnered with leading corporations such as the NFL, FanDuel, NBC Universal, PowerSchool, Integrative Nutrition, and Morgan Stanley. Residing in South Dartmouth, MA, he is a proud father of six.

Through this article, Lawrence Alexander II highlights the need for a shift in college admissions processes from a "check-box mentality" to a more nuanced approach that values and considers the lived experiences and identities of applicants.

In June of 2023, Supreme Court Judge John Roberts handed down an opinion on the court's ruling on affirmative action as it relates to college admissions. For many educators, families, and students in underresourced communities, it was a grim reminder of how unconcerned most of the country seems to be with the historical and contextual issues that necessitated affirmative action in the first place. More than that, in the absence of laws and policies to create racial and socioeconomic parity in college admissions (and by proxy inclusive hiring and other arterial institutional functions where opportunity gaps abound), many leaders flummoxed when conceiving a way forward. With colleges and universities unable to consider an applicant's identity in the college admissions process, how can one work intentionally to synonymize “best and brightest” with “dynamic and diverse”? While justice may be blind, it’s an injustice to advance access and equity that way.

"The Court’s opinion opened the door to the most important part of a student’s application: their voice and opinion allow students to seek admission to express the impact of their lived experience"

Given the Supreme Court’s ruling and the adherence to legal counsel, a pinhole of light in the decision became a beacon of hope. Per Judge Roberts’ decision, an applicant could speak about the salience of their identity as it relates to their pursuit of higher education. The court’s opinion opened a door to the most important part of a student’s application: their voice. The opinion allows students seeking admission to express the impact of their lived experience and identity in their college application. This profoundly simple nuance would appear to be too good to be true: a.) All a student must do is articulate the value of their lived experience in their pursuit of higher education in their application. b). All an admissions office has to do is consider the values and attributes those applicants have expressed as salient in the application.

In the words of Lauryn Hill: “It could all be so simple, but you’d rather make it hard…”

Enter the problem of practice: Shaking the admissions profession out of the “check box mentality.” In the days when race could be considered in college admissions, the fact is, we didn’t consider much else. An applicant's identity, while materially important, wasn’t unpacked into attributes. An applicant could simply check a box and proceed with their application without interrogating the cultural significance and splendor it brought them. As with all racial equity work, this cultural interrogation isn’t just valuable for applicants of color; it’s good for all students. It’s not only good for students; it’s good for school counselors and schoolteachers. It’s not only good for school counselors and teachers; it’s good for college admissions professionals. Contrary to popular belief, equity work benefits everyone. But why is it so hard or at least so dissonant? On the high school side, teachers, school counselors, and Directors of College Counseling are learning a new way to guide students in cultural reflection. While their cultural identity may not rise to enough importance for all students to include it in their college essay writing, many have.

More than that, a key component of empathy is being able to “feel with the other,” which requires a fair amount of cultural introspection. On the college admissions side of the desk, it has become increasingly important to uncouple “who” an applicant is from “what” they bring to the table. Though dissonant, it has caused a beautiful renaissance of sorts in that they get to celebrate and investigate what students tell us about themselves and not what we assume.

All in all, I see this ruling and this moment as an unintended gift: more students telling more stories and our profession morphing into listening more deeply, reading more carefully, and centering the student experience. I’m sure these weren’t the gifts the lawsuit saw coming, but I, for one, am grateful to enjoy them.

If I could leave a few gems with my colleagues:

1. Students: Keep telling YOUR story. You bring enough to the table, so bring it all to the table.

2. School counselors and teachers: Listen more deeply. You don’t have to author the students’ experiences; be joyous narrators.

3. College Admissions Colleagues: Trust the process. Consider what you can consider, just be considerate.

In any time of tumult or polarization, joy is radical. Be joyous.

Legal