View this email .
American Dental Education Association

Volume 3, No. 6, July 5, 2023
U.S. Supreme Court Strikes Down Affirmative Action in Admissions

 

Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court (the Court) issued its in the Students for Fair Admissions, Inc (SFFA). v. President and Fellows of Harvard College (Harvard) case and the Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. (SFFA) v. University of North Carolina (UNC) case. Though these two cases were argued separately, for reasons noted below, the Court issued a joint decision which applies to both cases.

 

The ruling in the Harvard case was 6-2 in favor of SFFA, with Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson recusing herself due to her prior relationship with Harvard. The ruling in the UNC case was 6-3 along ideological lines.

 

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that race-conscious admissions programs at Harvard and the University of North Carolina are unconstitutional. Specifically, it ruled that these programs violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. In its brief, SFFA also argued that the admissions programs violated Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as well. The Court did not directly rule on that issue; instead, it referenced Gratz v. Bollinger, 539 U. S. 244, 276, n. 23 (2003), where the Court noted that a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment automatically means that Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is also violated.

 

The Court excluded military academies from the ruling because they have “potentially distinct interest” – though the Court does not define this “interest” or why or how they are “distinct.”

 

Though race can no longer be used as one of the factors admissions departments can consider, the Court left open the door for a different use of race in admissions. Specifically, the Court noted that,

 

“At the same time, nothing prohibits universities from considering an applicant's discussion of how race affected the applicant's life, so long as that discussion is concretely tied to a quality of character or unique ability that the particular applicant can contribute to the university.”

 

Therefore, universities can no longer use or even consider race as a factor in the admissions process, but students can choose to use and include their race in their applications, likely in their personal essay, through their discussion of how their racial identity has impacted their lives and their experiences. Please see the “Advocacy in Action” section below to register for a live ADEA web event on July 14 discussing the ruling and its policy implications.

 

Biden Administration Reacts to the U.S. Supreme Court’s Affirmative Action Rulings

 

and condemned last week’s U.S. Supreme Court ruling in the two affirmative action cases, Students for Fair Admissions v. President and Fellows of Harvard College and Students for Fair Admissions v. University of North Carolina.

 

Additionally, the Biden administration issued a highlighting its actions to promote educational opportunity and diversity in colleges and universities. In the fact sheet, President Biden asks 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.

 

The administration believes that the above three things can help promote diversity.

 

The President has also instructed "the Department of Education and Department of Justice to provide guidance and resources to colleges and universities addressing lawful admissions practices within the next 45 days, as colleges prepare for the next application cycle."

 

On Friday, in a 6-3 decision that was split along ideological lines, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that President Biden’s Student Debt Relief Plan, which would have forgiven up to $20,000 in student loans, was invalid and overstepped the administration’s authority. Further information regarding the Court’s decision will be in next week’s Advocate.

Florida CHIP Program to Raise Income Eligibility Limits

 

On June 22, Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) that will raise income eligibility limits for Florida’s Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), also known as Florida KidCare. Under the new law family income limits will be raised from 200% of the federal poverty level (FPL) to 300% FPL.

 

Additionally, the bill requires the Florida Healthy Kids Corporation to establish new monthly premiums for enrollees in households over 150% FPL. The new premiums must establish at least three, but no more than six, income-based tiers. Under the , families with incomes between 133% and 200% FPL are charged between $15 and $20 monthly premiums. The new income tiers would implement a sliding scale to include newly eligible families.

 

Georgia to Implement Partial Medicaid Expansion That Includes Work Requirements

 

Georgia launched its partial Medicaid expansion program known as on July 1. Under the program, individuals who earn up to 100% of the federal poverty level will be eligible for coverage under the state’s Medicaid program. Those eligible under the expansion will also have to meet a work requirement to maintain eligibility.

 

Under full Medicaid expansion, individuals who earn up to 138% FPL are eligible for coverage and the government pays 90% of the costs associated with expansion populations. Because Georgia is only expanding coverage to 100% FPL, the state will forego additional federal funding and will only receive the . An analysis conducted by the Georgetown University Health Policy Institute found that the decision to leave additional federal funds on the table by implementing a partial expansion will result in the state .

 

Although by federal courts, a federal judge reinstated Georgia’s work requirement in August 2022. Judge Lisa Godbey Wood ruled that the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) when it revoked Georgia’s work requirement in December 2021. Judge Wood stated that the decision by CMS was “arbitrary and capricious” as the agency failed to explain its decision. She also stated that CMS measured Georgia’s proposal against full Medicaid expansion, rather than measuring the proposal on its own, and that by doing so, the agency did not consider that rejection of the proposal could result in reduced Medicaid coverage as Georgia chose not to implement any expansion without the requirement.

 

ADEA Advocacy in Action

This appears weekly in the ADEA Advocate to summarize and provide direct links to recent advocacy actions taken by ADEA. Please let us know what you think and how we might improve its usefulness.

 

Issues and Resources

  • for a live ADEA web event on Friday July 14 from 1:00 pm to 3:00 pm entitled “The Supreme Court and Race in Admissions: Dissecting the Court’s Rulings in SFFA v. Harvard and SFFA v. UNC and Evaluating the Policy Implications for Enrollment Professionals.”
  • ADEA on teledentistry
  • ADEA on the Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on U.S. Dental Schools
  • ADEA policy regarding overprescription of antibiotics
  • For a full list of ADEA memos, briefs and letters click .

The is published weekly. Its purpose is to keep ADEA members abreast of federal and state issues and events of interest to the academic dentistry and the dental and research communities.

 

©2023

American Dental Education Association

655 K Street, NW, Suite 800

Washington, DC 20001

Tel: 202-289-7201

Website:

twitter
Unsubscribe

B. Timothy Leeth, CPA

ADEA Chief Advocacy Officer

 

Bridgette DeHart, J.D.

ADEA Director of Federal Relations and Advocacy

 

Phillip Mauller, M.P.S.

ADEA Director of State Relations and Advocacy

 

Zachary Fessler

ADEA Program Manager for Advocacy and Government Relations

 

Contact Us:
Higher Logic