By Robert A. Scott

The U.S. Supreme Court is expected to take up the nation’s debate over the consideration of race in college admissions this year. The court has decided to consider two cases filed against Harvard and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill by Students for Fair Admissions, an anti-affirmative action group.  The suit alleges that both institutions discriminate by practicing affirmative action and discriminating against Asian-American applicants in their admissions processes

The court has deliberated such cases before. In defending affirmative action in college and university admissions earlier, the Supreme Court ruled that “considerable deference is owed to a university in defining those intangible characteristics, like student body diversity, that are central to its identity and educational mission.”

In previous cases, educators, military leaders, and corporate chiefs filed friend of the court briefs arguing that diversity is a value and that diversity benefits both individuals and groups. They expressed the belief that experience with diverse populations is important because college graduates, whether they are Asian, Black, Latino, Native American, other indigenous or white, will live in communities and work in enterprises that are influenced by international and inter-cultural endeavors. They will be neighbors of, supervise, or be supervised by persons of a different ethnicity, nationality, race, gender, economic background, or religion.

For these reasons, colleges try to create diverse communities of students, faculty, and staff to prepare students for their futures.  The high schools and towns from which higher education institutions recruit students generally do not provide this diversity. Colleges make up for it because experience with diversity promotes learning.

In considering the allegations against Harvard, it is useful to acknowledge that it admits under 5 percent of all those who apply. (UNC admits 25%.) The most selective institutions enroll under 20%.

In other words, Harvard and other elite colleges must decide whether to admit a class using a lottery, take the highest scoring in descending order, or attempt to compose a class with a variety of characteristics and life experiences. They choose diversity as a criterion because they know that academic credentials are highly correlated to family socio-economic status and income, and they want a more heterogeneous student body. On all counts, however, they choose candidates whom they believe will succeed.

The fact is that most colleges and universities do not have this challenge. According to the National Association of College Admissions Counselors, most institutions admit two-thirds of the applicants for freshman status. While 80 percent of those admitted to Harvard accept the offer, other well-known schools find that under 30 percent of those admitted will accept the offer. For most colleges, the yield on offers of admission is even lower.

There are pragmatic reasons for fostering diversity, equity and inclusion. It makes good sense to cast a wide net in searching for talent, especially when we look at trends in population statistics. If we don’t look widely and consider diverse populations, we will limit the capabilities of our organizations. After all, which is more important: preserving a traditional view of who can contribute to achieving goals or succeeding at accomplishing those goals?

Wise employers adopt a “futures” perspective.  They know that a good record in managing diversity now in recruitment, retention and advancement will give them a competitive advantage in recruiting from among an increasingly diverse society in the future. They know that individual and group success requires teamwork, and that teamwork requires respect for others. These employers expect that they will have managers who are better attuned to the increasing diversity of customers and employees, not only in the U.S. but in other countries as well.

In years past, families of means enabled their children to study in other countries, travel widely, learn another language, and become familiar with cultures other than their own.  Why?  Because it is valuable to have experiences beyond the local.  Today, just as we think a much larger proportion of youth should attend college, we also believe that all students should experience a variety of cultures, whether they come from families of wealth or not.

Therefore, promoting diversity is not only a way to expand student’s horizons; it also is a means for exploding group stereotypes.  A diverse community helps us consider individuals and their unique talents as distinct from their backgrounds and ethnic identity.

Diversity is “a matter of color, texture, and size as in a quilt,” said former U.S. presidential candidate and activist Jesse Jackson. He described diversity as consisting of “many patches, many pieces, many colors, many sized, all woven and held together by a common thread.”’ And Shirley Chisholm, former member of the U.S. House of Representatives, said, “We Americans have a chance to become someday a nation in which all racial stocks and classes can exist in their own selfhoods but meet on a basis of respect and quality and live together socially, canonically, and politically.”

Diversity of age. gender, race, nationality, ethnicity, religion and socioeconomic background is a matter of fact. If we are to prepare students for careers and citizenship, and help our schools, communities, and business partners achieve success, then we must be committed to an education that includes diversity, equity and inclusion as values to honor.

Robert A. Scott is President Emeritus at Adelphi University