Dear Members of the Brown Community:

When the Supreme Court issued its ruling on race-conscious admissions on June 29, we committed to following up with additional information to ensure a shared understanding of the decision and its impacts for Brown. News coverage about the ruling has been extensive and given the volume of headlines, commentary and analysis that are at times conflicting, we recognize that there may be a lack of clarity about the implications of the decision.

After our own preliminary legal review, we want to ensure that the full Brown community understands the scope of the decision, even as there are many other questions that cannot yet be answered at this early stage. This communication addresses what the court’s decision means, what types of programs at Brown are impacted, and what additional guidance to expect moving forward.

Before addressing those points, I will reiterate what President Paxson said upon the court’s decision in June — we continue to believe that diversity among our students is essential to achieving our educational mission at Brown. While the ways in which we pursue that diversity will shift as we comply with the law, our values remain unchanged. There is no question that each and every one of the talented, exceptional students who calls Brown their home deserves to be here. In partnership with our outstanding faculty and staff, our students make Brown the world-class university it is, and we embrace all of them as essential members of our community.

The Ruling’s Scope and Implications for Brown

While much of the public attention is focused on undergraduate admissions, it is important to make clear that, in this regard, the scope of the Supreme Court decision is wider. For both public and private colleges and universities, the court’s ruling applies to all programs that involve an admissions decision, regardless of the student population involved. For Brown, this means that in addition to our undergraduate program, it applies to admissions for our graduate and medical programs, certificate programs, and programs for K-12 students. The decision stated that for these programs, while the goal of a diverse student body is commendable, consideration of “race for race’s sake” is unlawful.

However, universities may consider “an applicant’s discussion of how race affected the applicant’s life, so long as that discussion is concretely tied to a quality or character or unique ability that the particular applicant can contribute to the university.” For admission to its degree programs, Brown has long practiced a holistic, or “whole person” review of each applicant in the admission process, and the majority opinion of the court constituted a strong endorsement for this individualized review, clarifying that nothing limited consideration of an individual's personal experiences related to race.

In other ways, the scope of the decision is narrow. For example, the decision is only applicable to consideration of race in admission decisions — it does not affect other factors considered in admission decisions that relate to the diversity of the student body, such as veteran status, geography, socioeconomic background or first-generation status. And as in the past, race-themed programs, activities and affinity centers remain permissible, provided that race is not an eligibility criterion for participation. Similarly, race cannot be a factor in the eligibility of students to receive awards, prizes, internships or campus jobs.

It is also important to note that the decision has no effect on employment. Brown’s employment practices remain unchanged and are subject to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which prohibits discrimination against job applicants and employees on the basis of race, color, religion, sex and national origin. As in the past, Brown can actively work to increase the diversity of its applicant pool for faculty, staff and postdoc positions, but cannot take into account any of the factors listed above in the actual hiring decision. Similarly, efforts at Brown to implement Departmental Diversity and Inclusion Action Plans (DDIAPs) can continue unabated, as we continue to build a diverse and inclusive environment to sustain and strengthen academic excellence in compliance with the law.

Additional Resources and Guidance

Even with a shared understanding of the decision and its scope, we know that community members will have additional questions about the impacts on specific Brown programs and initiatives. As an initial resource, we have published a set of Frequently Asked Questions on the Office of the Provost website, and we will provide additional resources in the months ahead.

We also expect more information from the federal government. The White House has stated that the U.S. Department of Justice and the U.S. Department of Education will provide guidance on lawful admissions practices by mid-August, and the Department of Education will provide additional guidance on administering programs to support students from underrepresented populations. As we receive and analyze that guidance, we will provide further information to the Brown community.

In the interim, the Office of the General Counsel will continue to schedule workshops for relevant admissions officers and other academic and administrative leaders, as well as hold sessions for members of the community who may operate race-themed programs and activities. Faculty and staff who have questions regarding specific programs should reach out to [email protected] for consultation.

We appreciate your diligence in reviewing this guidance as we all work together to ensure that we comply with the law while sustaining the diversity and inclusion that is so central to Brown’s mission.

Sincerely,

Francis J. Doyle III

Provost