In June 2023, the Supreme Court ruled against the use of race-conscious admissions policies in higher education in the cases of Students for Fair Admissions v. University of North Carolina and Students for Fair Admissions v. Presidents and Fellows of Harvard College. This ruling significantly impacts admissions in PA education.
In addition to the Supreme Court’s ruling on race conscious admissions policies, some states have also enacted new restrictions on institutional spending for initiatives to promote equity, diversity, and inclusion. To support programs in adapting to this new paradigm while upholding the Association’s core values, PAEA encourages members to leverage the resources below.
Core Resources
- Full Supreme Court Decision and Dissents
- Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. University of North Carolina, et.al: What the Federal District Court Said and What It Can Mean for Postsecondary Institutions that Consider Race in Admissions
- Health Professions Amicus Brief
- SCOTUS Blog Summary of Cases
- AAMC Frequently Asked Questions
EDI Restrictions in Higher Education: Survey of the Current Landscape Webinar
In April 2024, PAEA hosted a webinar to provide an update on state and federal efforts to restrict EDI in higher education. In the recording, members can learn more about the policy landscape and its implications for PA education.
EDI Restrictions by State
Frequently Asked Questions
The Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. Presidents and Fellows of Harvard College ruling is a landmark opinion of the Supreme Court addressing the use of race-conscious admissions policies in higher education. In a significant departure from precedent, the Court ruled that race-conscious admissions programs violate the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution, effectively prohibiting said policies at all institutions of higher education.
The ruling applies to all institutions of higher education, both public and private, as well as the admissions processes of both undergraduate and graduate level programs, including PA programs.
No, the Supreme Court’s ruling does not impose any prohibitions on recruitment efforts targeted at underrepresented communities, and PAEA continues to support pathway development as a key means to promote student diversity.
While the Supreme Court’s ruling prohibits consideration of race and ethnicity in admissions decisions, programs may consider alternative admissions methodologies such as adversity scores, which consider a range of factors such as socioeconomic status and past life experiences. Additional information on how adversity scores have been implemented can be found here.
Continuing to use affirmative action practices despite the ruling may pose significant risks for PA programs. It is advisable to consult institutional legal counsel to assess the specific implications and risks associated with changes in admissions practices.
No. The carve-out provided by the Supreme Court is narrowly targeted towards the nation’s military academies. Due to the required affiliation with a civilian university, which is inherently bound by the Supreme Court’s restrictions, in order to grant a master’s degree per ARC-PA standards, this carve-out does not impact PA education.
Most states that have enacted legislation or issued executive orders to restrict EDI spending have included language creating a carve-out for activities necessary to maintain institutional or programmatic accreditation. Additional information on state-specific carve-outs can be found in the table above. As of March 2025, the ARC-PA has suspended enforcement of the A1.11 standard.
Members are encouraged to monitor the state legislative landscape on EDI spending by regularly checking the Chronicle of Higher Education’s legislative tracker.