"Renewables are saving Texas. Again. So give them their due," by Catherine Rampell | Washington Post | July 4, 2023

This is a good Texas story and the big difference that renewable energy is making in Texas. To save the gas and oil industry, Washington Post author Catherine Rampell indicates, these good news are not getting a lot of fanfare, unfortunately. This should be read in tandem with this prescient piece authored by Stanley Cox in the LA Progressive, titled, Tinpot Legislators: Will Their One-Party Rule Destroy the Earth?

We should vigorously defend renewable energy, my friends, which means opposing proposed legislation that seek to curtail or limit it. 

Our use of fossil fuels are heating up the planet, putting us all in peril. We need to work collectively toward a carbon-free future. Texas is poised to take a lead in this regard. Instead of remaining mum or seeking ways to curb investments in renewable energy, our leadership should show a little pride and give voice to this. We are, after all, in the midst of suffocating heat and a clear climate emergency.

-Angela Valenzuela

#ClimateChange #ClimateEmergency

Reference

Cox, S. (2023, April 2). Tinpot Legislators: Will Their One-Party Rule Destroy the Earth? LA Progressive.

Renewables are saving Texas. Again. So give them their due.

by Catherine Rampell | Washington Post | July 4, 2023

Wind turbines are seen near San Benito, Tex., in November 2020. (Brenda Bazán for 

The Washington Post)

This summer, like last summer, Texas has battled a brutal heat wave that regularly reaches triple-digit temperatures. This summer, like last summer, the heat wave triggered record levels of energy demand. This summer, like last summer, there have miraculously been no rolling blackouts; in fact, this year, the state’s grid operator has so far asked for just one day of voluntary energy conservation.

And this summer, like last summer, renewables have been the heroes of the story — yet they remain curiously vilified by politicians in the Lone Star State.

In recent years, renewable energy has been ramping up across Texas. The state has rapidly increased solar capacity, for instance, enabling as much as 16,800 megawatts of solar power to be produced on the grid as of the end of May. That’s roughly six times the capacity that existed in 2019 (about 2,600 megawatts), according to data from the Electric Reliability Council of Texas, the state’s grid operator.This increase — coupled with greater wind and storage development — is what has allowed Texans to beat the heat and keep their electricity bills down.

After all, several thermal-energy plants in the state went offline in recent weeks, as coal, natural gas and nuclear facilities appeared to buckle under extreme temperatures and shrinking maintenance windows. Additional solar and wind generation more than made up the difference. Renewables overall have lately represented roughly 35 to 40 percent of power generation at peak, compared with about 30 percent last year.

The result is not only that renewables have enabled Texas residents to keep the lights and air conditioning on during this hellish heat. They probably also saved Texans “billions of dollars” last week alone by keeping prices from spiking, says Doug Lewin, an Austin-based energy consultant and author of the Texas Energy and Power Newsletter.

In the legislative session that recently ended, state lawmakers introduced a raft of bills designed to curb renewable-energy investment and prop up traditional thermal energy producers. One bill, for example, would have put new permitting requirements in place just for wind and solar, and nothing else. “You could still site an oil and gas well literally across the fence line from a day-care facility,” explains Lewin, “but you’d have to go and ask permission to put a solar panel on somewhere.”

These bills seem to have been motivated by a combination of factors. For some, it’s just NIMBYism (people not wanting their rustic views ruined by wind turbines, for example). Others want to help the state’s beloved fossil-fuel industry. (Texas remains the top oil-and-gas producing state in the nation, too.) And perhaps others are driven by culture-war concerns (renewables are indulgences pushed by commie tree-huggers, etc.).

While the worst of these bills didn’t make it through, they are likely to get revived in the years ahead. Renewables have proved a favorite scapegoat for any problems with Texas’s power system — even when they’re actually the key to alleviating those problems. For which they never seem to get their due.

In the legislative session that recently ended, state lawmakers introduced a raft of bills designed to curb renewable-energy investment and prop up traditional thermal energy producers. One bill, for example, would have put new permitting requirements in place just for wind and solar, and nothing else. “You could still site an oil and gas well literally across the fence line from a day-care facility,” explains Lewin, “but you’d have to go and ask permission to put a solar panel on somewhere.”

These bills seem to have been motivated by a combination of factors. For some, it’s just NIMBYism (people not wanting their rustic views ruined by wind turbines, for example). Others want to help the state’s beloved fossil-fuel industry. (Texas remains the top oil-and-gas producing state in the nation, too.) And perhaps others are driven by culture-war concerns (renewables are indulgences pushed by commie tree-huggers, etc.).

While the worst of these bills didn’t make it through, they are likely to get revived in the years ahead. Renewables have proved a favorite scapegoat for any problems with Texas’s power system — even when they’re actually the key to alleviating those problems. For which they never seem to get their due.

In the legislative session that recently ended, state lawmakers introduced a raft of bills designed to curb renewable-energy investment and prop up traditional thermal energy producers. One bill, for example, would have put new permitting requirements in place just for wind and solar, and nothing else. “You could still site an oil and gas well literally across the fence line from a day-care facility,” explains Lewin, “but you’d have to go and ask permission to put a solar panel on somewhere.”

These bills seem to have been motivated by a combination of factors. For some, it’s just NIMBYism (people not wanting their rustic views ruined by wind turbines, for example). Others want to help the state’s beloved fossil-fuel industry. (Texas remains the top oil-and-gas producing state in the nation, too.) And perhaps others are driven by culture-war concerns (renewables are indulgences pushed by commie tree-huggers, etc.).

While the worst of these bills didn’t make it through, they are likely to get revived in the years ahead. Renewables have proved a favorite scapegoat for any problems with Texas’s power system — even when they’re actually the key to alleviating those problems. For which they never seem to get their due.

In the legislative session that recently ended, state lawmakers introduced a raft of bills designed to curb renewable-energy investment and prop up traditional thermal energy producers. One bill, for example, would have put new permitting requirements in place just for wind and solar, and nothing else. “You could still site an oil and gas well literally across the fence line from a day-care facility,” explains Lewin, “but you’d have to go and ask permission to put a solar panel on somewhere.”

These bills seem to have been motivated by a combination of factors. For some, it’s just NIMBYism (people not wanting their rustic views ruined by wind turbines, for example). Others want to help the state’s beloved fossil-fuel industry. (Texas remains the top oil-and-gas producing state in the nation, too.) And perhaps others are driven by culture-war concerns (renewables are indulgences pushed by commie tree-huggers, etc.).

While the worst of these bills didn’t make it through, they are likely to get revived in the years ahead. Renewables have proved a favorite scapegoat for any problems with Texas’s power system — even when they’re actually the key to alleviating those problems. For which they never seem to get their due.

FACT SHEET: President Biden Announces Actions to Promote Educational Opportunity and Diversity in Colleges and Universities

It's a really good thing that President Biden didn't hesitate to chide the Supreme Court for their recent, anti-affirmative action decision. Here is a related piece titled, "Biden says Supreme Court ruling should not deter colleges from efforts to diversify their campuses" where he states the following:

"While colleges can no longer explicitly consider a student’s race as part of a holistic admissions review, the court’s opinion does allow colleges to look at how race affected a student’s life, so long as it’s tied to a unique skill or character they’d bring to the school. Discussions like that typically come up in an applicant’s personal essay."

In other words, a student can bring this up in their personal essay or statement of purpose so as to inform the admissions evaluator of their race and how it connects to a personal strength, skill or attribute they'll bring to the university if admitted. While this is a good thing, much more must be done. Do read through President Biden's fact sheet below as it outlines an array of responses by his administration that should prove helpful. It's curious that there's no mention of percent plans like we have in Texas.

-Angela Valenzuela

FACT SHEET: President Biden Announces Actions to Promote Educational Opportunity and Diversity in Colleges and Universities

HOME
BRIEFING ROOM
STATEMENTS AND RELEASES


Today, the Supreme Court upended decades of precedent that enabled America’s colleges and universities to build vibrant diverse environments where students are prepared to lead and learn from one another. Although the Court’s decision threatens to move the country backwards, the Biden-Harris Administration will fight to preserve the hard-earned progress we have made to advance racial equity and civil rights and expand educational opportunity for all Americans.

As our nation’s colleges and universities consider their admissions processes in the wake of the Court’s decision, President Biden is calling on them to seize the opportunity to expand access to educational opportunity for all. Our nation is stronger when our colleges and universities reflect the vast and rich diversity of our people. But while talent, creativity, and hard work are everywhere across this country, equal opportunity is not.

Specifically, the President is calling on colleges and universities, when selecting among qualified applicants, to give serious consideration to the adversities students have overcome, including:the financial means of a student or their family; where a student grew up and went to high school; and personal experiences of hardship or discrimination, including racial discrimination, that a student may have faced.

In doing so, colleges and universities can fully value aspiring students who demonstrate resilience and determination in the face of deep challenges.

The Biden-Harris Administration is taking swift action to support our Nation’s colleges and universities so they can continue building pathways to upward mobility and success for all students to thrive in the American workforce and our Nation’s military. Specifically, the Biden-Harris Administration is:Providing colleges and universities with clarity on what admissions practices and additional programs to support students remain lawful. The Department of Education and Department of Justice will provide resources to colleges and universities addressing lawful admissions practices within the next 45 days, as colleges prepare for the next application cycle. The Department of Education will also provide assistance to colleges and universities in administering programs to support students from underserved communities.

Convening a National Summit on Educational Opportunity. The Department of Education will host a national summit on equal opportunity in postsecondary education next month with advocates, student leaders, college and university administrators, researchers, and state, local, territorial and Tribal leaders to share lessons learned and innovative strategies, and develop additional resources for colleges and students to expand access to educational opportunity.

Releasing a report on strategies for increasing diversity and educational opportunity, including meaningful consideration of adversity. Following the Summit, the Department of Education will produce a report by this September, elevating promising admissions practices to build inclusive, diverse student bodies, including by using measures of adversity. The report will address topics including the impact of current admissions practices that may negatively affect the admissions chances of students from underserved communities; strategies to integrate measures of adversity in admissions; outreach and recruitment programs to create diverse applicant pools; strategies for retention and degree completion; and financial and other support programs to make college attainable.

Increasing transparency in college admissions and enrollment practices. The Administration is committed to providing transparent data with respect to admissions and enrollment. The Department of Education’s National Center for Educational Statistics will consider ways to collect and publish more information related to college application and enrollment trends. This includes ways that information might be validly disaggregated by race and ethnicity, first-generation status, legacy status, and other measures. Information in these areas could help higher education leaders, academics and the general public address potential barriers to college recruitment, admissions, and enrollment.

Supporting states in analyzing data to increase access to educational opportunity for underserved communities. The Department of Education will assist states, territories and Tribal nations in marshaling their data to improve college recruitment, admissions, and financial aid practices and devise strategies for increasing access to educational opportunity, such as partnerships to appropriately share and use education data, and direct admissions programs that proactively admit students based on factors such as academic performance and students’ geographic location – without requiring them to apply or pay an application fee.

This work builds upon the Biden-Harris Administration’s historic efforts to ensure all students have the opportunity to access higher education by:Securing a historic increase in the Pell Grants: The President championed the largest increase to Pell Grants in the last decade – a combined increase of $900 to the maximum award over the past two years to benefit low – and middle-income students.

Prioritizing college completion: The Biden-Harris Administration has championed efforts to improve postsecondary outcomes, particularly for students who face the greatest barriers to accessing and completing college. In response to the President’s budget, Congress established a new Postsecondary Student Success Grant program to provide direct support to institutions to engage in evidence-based activities that support college re-enrollment, retention, and completion among individuals who are close to graduation.

Supporting America’s Minority-Serving Institutions: President Biden has secured historic investments in institutions that enroll and graduate disproportionate shares of low-income students and students of color, including tens of billions of dollars in funding for Historically Black Colleges and Universities, Tribal Colleges and Universities, Asian American and Native American Pacific Islander-Serving Institutions and Minority Serving Institutions, including Hispanic Serving Institutions through the Department of Education.

Fixing the broken student loan system: The Biden-Harris Administration has taken action to make the student loan system more manageable for current and future borrowers and reduce the burden of student debt, including by:Cutting monthly payments in half for undergraduate loans. The Department of Education is proposing an income-driven repayment plan that protects more low-income borrowers from making any payments and caps monthly payments for undergraduate loans at 5% of a borrower’s discretionary income – half of the rate that borrowers must pay now under existing plans. The average annual student loan payment will be lowered by more than $1,000 for both current and future student borrowers who owe payments.

Fixing the broken Public Service Loan Forgiveness (PSLF) program by ensuring that borrowers who have worked at a qualifying nonprofit organization, in the military, or in federal, state, territorial, Tribal, or local government, receive appropriate credit towards loan forgiveness. These regulatory changes build on temporary changes the Department of Education made to PSLF, under which roughly 616,000 public servants received more than $42 billion in loan forgiveness.

Ensuring targeted student loan forgiveness programs work. Including its reforms to PSLF, the Department of Education has approved a total of more than $66 billion in relief to over 2.2 million student loan borrowers, including many who were defrauded by their college, enrolled in a college that abruptly closed, or are permanently disabled and unable to work.

Friends, 

Check out this excellent recap of many years of history on higher education admissions in Texas by Kate McGee with the Texas Tribune. We must fully advocate for this plan that despite its race neutrality, could get eliminated. 

It therefore behooves Black and Brown community advocates, leaders, and legislators in Texas to form coalitions with their respective rural counterparts on what should be a shared policy agenda in this arena. The reason is not because as Dr. Stella Flores says, it is a "silver bullet" for a diverse entering class, but rather because it has been relatively successful as a remedy, especially in combination with other recruitment tools and strategies.

 In principle, Texas' Top Ten Percent Plan is truly about giving all students in the state of Texas a stab at getting admitted into Texas' flagship institutions, most especially the University of Texas at Austin and Texas A & M University.

-Angela Valenzuela

With race-based admissions no longer an option, states may imitate Texas Top 10% Plan

Now that the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled the practice unconstitutional, admissions experts say other states could look to Texas’ Top 10% Plan as a way to diversify their student bodies.

BY KATE MCGEE JUNE 29, 2023UPDATED: 1 PM CENTRAL

The Texas flag flies on the south lawn of the University of Texas at Austin campus. After the U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday struck down the consideration of race in college admissions, some experts say Texas’ Top 10% Plan could become a new model for other states. Credit: Eddie Gaspar/The Texas Tribune

More than 20 years ago, when the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals banned the use of affirmative action in college admissions in its jurisdiction, those trying to diversify Texas public universities panicked, fearing that the ruling would undo years of modest progress they had made increasing the number of students of color at the state’s top public universities.

The impact of the law was immediate. At the University of Texas at Austin, Hispanic enrollment dropped by 15% in one year, while Black enrollment dropped by 25%.

To curb that decline, Texas lawmakers created a “race-neutral” program known as The Top 10% Plan, aimed at giving a broader group of Texas students opportunities to attend state universities by automatically admitting those who graduated in the top 10% of their high school classes.

Researchers found the plan never succeeded in regaining the racial diversity lost after the 1996 ban on race-conscious admissions at UT-Austin or Texas A&M University’s main campus in College Station, nor has it meaningfully changed which high schools are sending students to those schools. But supporters say it helps provide equal access to the state’s top schools, though they say it is not a standalone solution to increase diversity among the student bodies.

Now, two decades later, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled Thursday that the use of race in college admissions at two universities, Harvard University and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, violates the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause, effectively ending race-based considerations in college admissions nationwide.

Following that ruling, admissions experts say percentage plans, including Texas’, could get more attention from other states despite the questionable diversity gains by the Texas plan.

“[T]he effectiveness of percentage plans to make a large, aggregate change in enrollment demographics remains an unsettled issue,” according to an upcoming paper on how state policymakers can respond to the Supreme Court’s ruling. Its authors are James Murphy, deputy director of higher education policy at Education Reform Now, a national education nonprofit, and researcher Virginia Carr Schneider.

The policy exploited the existing racial and ethnic segregation of Texas public high schools, allowing universities to accept students from different areas of the state and a wider array of schools without explicitly considering students’ race. Ever since, the plan has faced criticism from suburban parents, state lawmakers and university leaders who believe it makes it harder for students in well-resourced schools to get admitted to the state’s flagship universities.

“However, percentage plans can have a significant impact on the opportunities of students of color, which, given the lack of evidence for negative effects of percentage plans, means they could still provide benefits, making their implementation worthwhile.”

A plan is born

Texas’ Top 10% Plan was developed in 1997 with the help of Hispanic activists and lawmakers after the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that banned the use of race in admissions in the three states within its jurisdiction, including Texas.

The late state Rep. Irma Rangel, a Democrat from Kingsville, filed a bill that required each public university in the state to automatically admit any students who graduated in the top 10% of their graduating classes.

Critics, including many conservative lawmakers, thought the rule was unfair to white students from well-resourced high schools who might have a harder time reaching the top 10% of their classes. They were also concerned it would send more underprepared students to Texas universities, particularly the flagships, UT-Austin and Texas A&M.

Rangel pointed out that rural high schools struggled to send white students to UT-Austin, as well as students of color, which helped her cobble together a coalition of Black and Hispanic liberals and rural conservatives to narrowly pass the measure. Then-Gov. George W. Bush signed it into law.

While California and Florida also have percentage plans, Texas’ plan is unique because it allows students in the top 10% of their graduating class to choose which school to attend, rather than assigning them a school.

Six years later, in 2003, the U.S. Supreme Court nullified the 5th Circuit’s decision when it upheld the use of affirmative action in college admissions in a case involving the University of Michigan. That allowed Texas universities to consider race again, but The Top 10% Plan also remained.

Eventually, state lawmakers grew concerned that the plan created unintended consequences for UT-Austin, which was accepting more and more of its freshman class through The Top 10% Plan, which meant that there was less space for other students, including out-of-state students or student athletes.

Ultimately, the state Legislature created a carve-out for UT-Austin in 2009, specifying that 75% of each freshman class must be admitted under The Top 10% Plan while the remaining 25% would be admitted through a holistic review process that considers factors such as grade point average, extracurriculars, personal essays and race. That change means the university had to shrink the number of students automatically admitted. Last year, UT-Austin automatically accepted students in the top 6% of their graduating class.

This year, state lawmakers removed a provision in state law that would have forced UT-Austin to admit all students under The Top 10% Plan if a court decision banned the use of race in college admissions. With Thursday’s ruling, UT-Austin can continue to enroll 75% of students through The Top 10% Plan, but it can no longer consider race when accepting the other 25% of the freshman class.

Results so far

When the Top 10% law initially went into effect, the results were positive. Students enrolled under the law had a higher freshman year grade point average than other students, and the number of Black students increased by 44% and the number of Hispanic students grew by nearly 10% at state universities.

But over time, as more data became available to review, researchers started to find that not much had changed in terms of who was enrolling at the state’s flagships.

In 2020, two researchers looked at 18 years of data to see whether the law increased access to Texas’ most selective public universities, UT-Austin and Texas A&M.

They found a slight increase in the number of non-suburban high schools that sent students to those schools, but ultimately determined The Top 10% Plan did not meaningfully change which high schools sent students to UT-Austin or Texas A&M prior to the law’s implementation. The researchers also found that there continued to be more high-achieving students from well-resourced high schools enrolling at the flagships compared with students from other high schools.

Still, supporters argue that scaling back or scrapping the plan would make it harder to create a more diverse student body. According to a data analysis by the Intercultural Development Research Association, the vast majority of Black, Hispanic and Asian students at UT-Austin are accepted through The Top 10% Plan, while the university’s holistic review process disproportionately favors white students.

Data from the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board also shows The Top 10% Plan hasn’t helped UT-Austin or Texas A&M reflect the demographics of the state’s 18- to 22-year-olds.

In 2009, 51% of UT-Austin freshmen were white and 23% were Hispanic, while the state’s 18- to 22-year-old population was 41% white and 41% Hispanic. By 2020, that age group was 32% white and 48% Hispanic statewide; UT-Austin’s freshman class was 32% white and 31% Hispanic that year.

At Texas A&M, the gaps were even wider: 55% of the 2020 freshman class was white while 26% were Hispanic.

Meanwhile, Black students made up 7% of the freshman class at UT-Austin and 3% of Texas A&M’s freshman class in 2020 — significantly lower than their 13% share of the 18-22 population.

Stella Flores, a higher education and public policy expert at UT-Austin, said that Texas' percentage plan is not a silver bullet to achieving more diverse student bodies.

"But it doesn't mean it can't be amended or supported with more funding, better recruitment and better outreach so that it can work," she said.

Higher education policy experts say that for percentage plans to work, schools also must recruit students from underrepresented groups and create a welcoming environment for them. That could be more difficult in Texas after state lawmakers passed a bill this year banning diversity, equity and inclusion offices at public universities, said Dominique Baker, a higher education policy professor at Southern Methodist University.

"Some might say the exact office that is supposed to spearhead brainstorming about this and focusing on this has now been declared illegal in the state of Texas," Baker said.

Following the Supreme Court’s ruling, researchers also say the Texas model might not work in other states where racial segregation is not as extreme.

“Indeed, most evidence confirms that the amount of segregation in states that use Top X% Plans is not enough to produce the levels of racial and ethnic diversity achieved under race-based admissions policies,” researchers Kalena Cortes at Texas A&M and Daniel Klasik at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill wrote in a 2020 paper on The Top 10% Plan.

And some higher education policy experts say it’s likely The Top 10% Plan could be the next focus of debate in Texas college admissions. A 2017 bill that died in the Legislature, for example, would have let UT-Austin accept only 30% of its students through the plan rather than 70%.

“That’s coming,” said Murphy with EdReform. “The attacks will come for percentage plans, inevitably.”

Emily Berman, a constitutional law expert at the University of Houston Law Center, said it's possible that those against the use of race in admissions could file lawsuits accusing universities of using "race-neutral" policies for the specific purpose of creating racial diversity.

"It wouldn't surprise me if [opponents] come back and say, even race neutral mechanisms shouldn't be allowed if their purpose is to achieve more racially diverse student bodies," she said, adding that she thinks this argument could be made against Texas' Top 10% Plan.

Disclosure: Texas A&M University, the University of Houston and the University of Texas at Austin have been financial supporters of The Texas Tribune, a nonprofit, nonpartisan news organization that is funded in part by donations from members, foundations and corporate sponsors. Financial supporters play no role in the Tribune’s journalism. Find a complete list of them here.

AERA Statement on Supreme Court Decision on Race in College Admissions, June 29, 2023

Friends:

I am proud of the American Educational Research Association's response to the SCOTUS ruling against affirmative action. It notes that there are clear ambiguities in the decision clearly as it did not "overrule prior rulings that allow race as a factor in admissions to achieve the benefits of educational diversity for all students." I do encourage all to read AERA's amicus brief that is highly informative on the benefits of diversity to higher education

institutions that was received by an ideological, extremist Supreme Court that cared less about the evidence. Incidentally, several on the court claim to be Constitutional originalist, but conveniently ignored the post-Civil War Reconstruction context of the 14th Amendment that would have legitimated race-based admissions.

Despite this, as noted by the editors of the New York Times, "The Supreme Court Turns ‘Equal Protection’ Upside Down.

These are sad, if not terrible and outrageous, times for current and potential students of color—and all students, indeed—in U.S. higher education. The court has turned a blind eye to structural and institutional inequality that ties the hands of lower courts and policymakers that might seek to acknowledge this. If you are not convinced, read the evidence. Read the amicus brief and learn the truth of the value and importance of diversity to our country and society.

The greatest damage may very well be symbolic in terms of the message it sends regarding the supremacy that court is giving to white citizens. Personally, I am disgusted by a Supreme Court that has been hostile not just to the idea of diversity in higher education as a public good, but also to the post-Civil War project of Reconstruction since day one. 

Truly, my dear friends, colleagues, and students, all is not lost. I do encourage you to read my earlier post today on the matter titled, "Wondering What Will Likely Happen to Higher Ed in the wake of the SCOTUS Anti-Affirmative action Ruling?" We are definitely losing ground though we are not bereft of power. There is much work ahead.

-Angela Valenzuela

For Immediate Release: June 29, 2023 Contacts: Tony Pals, tpals@aera.net (202) 238-3235 Marla Koenigsknecht, mkoenigsknecht@aera.net (202) 238-3233 AERA Statement on Supreme Court Decision on Race in College Admissions June 29, 2023 The following statement is from Felice J. Levine, executive director, and Tyrone C. Howard, president, of the American Educational Research Association. Today the U.S. Supreme Court made it harder for higher education to achieve student equity and inclusivity, but avenues remain open and higher education must seize them. The decision is a low point that could impede equitable access to higher education; erode campus diversity; reinforce, rather than reduce, longstanding and pernicious patterns of bias in higher education; and hinder the development of future workers and leaders who can thrive in an increasingly multicultural society. The Court did not expressly overrule prior rulings that allow race as a factor in admissions to achieve the benefits of educational diversity for all students. However, it invalidated the way institutions and prior Court decisions have defined the educational benefits of diversity as insufficiently measurable and without a necessary end point. More analysis is needed of the complex decision to determine how it translates into institutional policies and practices. While the Court’s decision will leave students and the country worse off, it should not extinguish scientific and higher education efforts to pursue educational equity and excellence for all students. Sadly the Court’s decision fails to acknowledge the substantial body of scientific evidence that student body diversity improves educational outcomes. Study after study has found that alternatives to race-conscious admissions put into place by states do not have the same impact as race-conscious policies in achieving that crucial diversity. The constraints imposed by the Court are formidable; yet, the scientific community and higher education need to respond by redoubling their efforts and expanding their commitment to the hard work of creating equitable educational systems. Meanwhile, at a time when college opportunity is limited for underrepresented students of color and members of other marginalized groups, we urge all educational institutions to take all legal paths to ensure that students from all backgrounds get equal opportunities. We furthermore urge researchers across the country to work with colleges and universities to develop and implement admissions criteria and processes that are as inclusionary as possible for students of color and address systemic inequities. In 2022, AERA and other major research associations submitted a Supreme Court amicus brief in support of Harvard University and the University of North Carolina, calling on the court to rely on the substantial body of research and reaffirm the governmental interest in diversity. Joining AERA on the brief were the American Anthropological Association, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Political Science Association, the American Sociological Association, the Association for the Study of Higher Education, and the Linguistic Society of America. Visit the AERA website for research resources related to the case and race-conscious admission policies. ### About AERA The American Educational Research Association (AERA) is the largest national interdisciplinary research association devoted to the scientific study of education and learning. Founded in 1916, AERA advances knowledge about education, encourages scholarly inquiry related to education, and promotes the use of research to improve education and serve the public good. Find AERA on Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, and Instagram. View this release online. Share this release American Educational Research Association 1430 K Street, NW Suite 1200 Washington, DC 20005 (202) 238-3200