U.S. court skeptical of challenge to elite Virginia school’s admissions policy

By Nate Raymond

(Reuters) – A U.S. appeals court docket on Friday appeared skeptical of claims that an admissions coverage adopted for a extremely selective Virginia public highschool discriminates towards Asian Individuals in a intently watched problem introduced by a conservative dad and mom group.

The Richmond-based 4th U.S. Circuit Court docket of Appeals heard arguments within the Fairfax County College Board’s attraction of a choose’s ruling that Thomas Jefferson Excessive College for Science & Expertise’s admissions coverage was discriminatory and violates the U.S. Structure’s 14th Modification assure of equal safety underneath the regulation.

Throughout the arguments, Erin Wilcox, a lawyer with the conservative Pacific Authorized Basis representing the group referred to as Coalition for TJ, was questioned by the judges on how an admissions coverage that facially doesn’t take into account race could be discriminatory.

The coverage was adopted in 2020 by the college board following issues a few lack of racial variety on the college, which is named “TJ” and sometimes ranks among the many finest U.S. public excessive faculties.

TJ is a magnet college situated in Alexandria with a selective admissions coverage that has had continual underrepresentation of Black and Hispanic college students. Conscious of this, the board crafted a coverage that eradicated a standardized take a look at from TJ’s admissions course of, capped what number of college students may come from every of the district’s center faculties and assured seats for the highest college students from every of those faculties.

“Racial discrimination by proxy is nothing new,” Wilcox informed the three-judge 4th Circuit panel.

The case is one other entrance within the U.S. authorized battle over college admissions insurance policies involving or affecting the racial composition of campuses.

On its face, the highschool’s coverage is race impartial, not like race-conscious insurance policies utilized by Harvard College and the College of North Carolina that the conservative-majority U.S. Supreme Court docket will assessment on Oct. 31. That litigation provides the excessive court docket an opportunity to finish affirmative motion insurance policies utilized by many schools and universities to extend racial variety on campus.

Whereas Black and Hispanic scholar admissions elevated underneath TJ’s new coverage, the proportion of Asian American college students decreased within the first yr from 73% to 54%, U.S. District Choose Claude Hilton famous in his February ruling that deemed the admissions guidelines improper “racial balancing.”

Choose Toby Heytens, an appointee of Democratic President Joe Biden, informed Wilcox throughout Thursday’s arguments that underneath that logic “any try to extend illustration of 1 group, in your view, by necessity discriminates towards one other.”

Don Verrilli, the previous U.S. solicitor normal representing the college board, mentioned the “radical” argument superior by the challengers boiled all the way down to saying that any authorities effort to extend alternatives for underrepresented teams violates the Structure.

“It is unnecessary to conclude that selling equal alternatives is a suspect function, as a result of it might inappropriately freeze in place the established order,” mentioned Sydney Foster, a U.S. Justice Division lawyer arguing for the Biden administration.

The one member of the panel who appeared sympathetic to the challengers was Choose Allison Jones Speeding, who requested whether or not trying to match regional racial demographics with a facially impartial coverage was an “impermissible function.”

Speeding, an appointee of Republican former President Donald Trump, dissented in a 2-1 ruling 4th Circuit ruling in April granting the college board’s request to delay the implementation of Hilton’s resolution whereas it appealed.

The Supreme Court docket in April declined an emergency request to dam the coverage, although three conservative justices dissented.

(Reporting by Nate Raymond in Boston; Modifying by Will Dunham and Alexia Garamfalvi)