Report on Legal Challenges to Inclusive Education Policies and Their Impact on Sustainable Development Goals

Introduction: A New Front in the Challenge to Educational Equity

Following the 2023 Supreme Court decision in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, a new legal strategy has emerged, targeting facially neutral, class-based educational policies. These policies are instrumental in advancing key United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly SDG 4 (Quality Education) and SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities). Conservative activists are now filing lawsuits against educational institutions not for considering race, but for implementing race-neutral measures designed to remedy long-standing socioeconomic and geographic disparities. This report analyzes these legal challenges and their potential to undermine progress toward a more inclusive and equitable society.

Case Studies: Threats to Policies Aligned with SDG 4 and SDG 10

Recent legal actions in Boston and Baltimore exemplify this trend, directly threatening initiatives that promote equitable access to quality education.

Boston Exam School Admissions Policy

A lawsuit has been filed against the Boston exam school admissions policy, which aims to foster socioeconomic and geographic diversity. This policy directly supports the targets of SDG 10 by seeking to reduce inequality of opportunity.

• Policy Mechanism: Seats are allocated across ZIP codes based on neighborhood income levels.
• Stated Goal: To promote a more balanced and representative student body, thereby enhancing the quality and inclusivity of education as mandated by SDG 4.
• The Challenge: Plaintiffs allege the system is a proxy for racial balancing, arguing that its effect of increasing racial diversity makes it unconstitutional, despite its race-neutral design.

Johns Hopkins University Medical School Program

A Title VI complaint was filed against a Johns Hopkins University program providing tuition-free medical education to students from lower and middle-income families. This initiative is a clear mechanism for achieving SDG 4 by removing financial barriers to specialized education and contributes to SDG 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth) by enabling graduates to enter the workforce without debilitating debt.

• Policy Mechanism: The program is open to students from families with annual incomes under $300,000, funded by a philanthropic gift.
• Stated Goal: To increase socioeconomic diversity within the medical profession.
• The Challenge: The complaint asserts that the income-based threshold is a form of “racial engineering,” citing census data on racial wealth gaps to claim the policy masks racial preferences.

Constitutional Framework and Its Relation to SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

The legal attacks represent a strategic effort to reinterpret the Equal Protection Clause in a manner that conflicts with established jurisprudence and the principles of SDG 16, which calls for just and inclusive institutions. The core of this effort is to equate a policymaker’s awareness of racial disparities with unconstitutional discriminatory intent.

Key Legal Precedents Upholding Race-Neutral Policies

For nearly five decades, U.S. courts have affirmed that facially neutral policies are not unconstitutional simply because they have a disproportionate racial impact. This legal foundation provides the space for institutions to pursue inclusive goals.

1. Washington v. Davis (1976): The Supreme Court held that a law neutral on its face is not invalid simply because it affects a greater proportion of one race than another.
2. Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development Corporation (1977): The Court reiterated that official action is not unconstitutional solely because it results in a racially disproportionate impact.
3. Personnel Administrator v. Feeney (1979): The Court clarified that “purposeful discrimination is the condition that offends the Constitution,” not merely an awareness of disparate impact.
4. Parents Involved v. Seattle (2007): Justice Anthony Kennedy’s controlling opinion affirmed that achieving a diverse student population through race-neutral strategies is a constitutionally permissible goal.
5. Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard (2023): The Court explicitly preserved the ability of institutions to use facially neutral criteria like income, geography, or personal adversity to achieve broadly inclusive outcomes.

Analysis of Implications for Sustainable Development

Should this legal strategy succeed, it would have severe consequences for the advancement of the Sustainable Development Goals by transforming legal frameworks from instruments of equality into barriers to progress.

Risk of Entrenching Inequality and Undermining SDG 10

The re-framing of constitutional harm threatens to reverse progress on reducing inequalities. By casting suspicion on policies designed to expand opportunity, this legal movement could:

• Solidify existing socioeconomic and racial hierarchies.
• Discourage institutions from implementing any race-neutral policies aimed at fostering inclusion.
• Shield exclusionary structures, such as high tuition costs that disproportionately affect marginalized communities, from scrutiny.

This approach operates asymmetrically, challenging measures that promote inclusion while ignoring those that have historically perpetuated exclusion, thereby undermining the very concept of substantive fairness central to SDG 10.

Conclusion: Upholding the Commitment to Inclusive and Equitable Systems

The current legal challenges to race-neutral, inclusive policies represent a direct threat to the fulfillment of SDG 4 (Quality Education) and SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities). These policies are not only consistent with established constitutional principles but are essential tools for dismantling systemic barriers to opportunity. If this legal effort succeeds, it will not be because these policies violate the Constitution, but because they effectively disrupt the social hierarchies the conservative legal movement seeks to preserve, marking a significant setback for the global sustainable development agenda.

Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

• SDG 4: Quality Education – The article’s central theme is access to higher and specialized education, including exam schools and medical schools.
• SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities – The core of the article discusses legal and policy battles over measures designed to remedy racial and socioeconomic inequities in educational admissions.
• SDG 1: No Poverty – The article mentions specific policies aimed at alleviating the financial burden of education for students from lower-income families.
• SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions – The entire discussion is framed around legal challenges, Supreme Court rulings, and the interpretation of constitutional principles like the Equal Protection Clause by judicial institutions.

What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

1. SDG 4: Quality Education

   • Target 4.3: By 2030, ensure equal access for all women and men to affordable and quality technical, vocational and tertiary education, including university.
     
     Explanation: The article directly discusses access to “competitive schools” and a “tuition-free medical school program.” The Johns Hopkins program, made possible by a large donation to eliminate tuition for students from families “earning under $300,000,” is a clear example of an initiative to make tertiary education more affordable and accessible.
   • Target 4.5: By 2030, eliminate gender disparities in education and ensure equal access to all levels of education and vocational training for the vulnerable…
     
     Explanation: The policies described in the article are designed to “remedy longstanding educational inequities” and expand access for “marginalized students.” The Boston policy’s use of ZIP codes and income levels and Johns Hopkins’ focus on socioeconomic diversity are attempts to ensure equal access for vulnerable populations who have faced “enduring barriers to opportunity.”

2. SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities

   • Target 10.2: By 2030, empower and promote the social, economic and political inclusion of all, irrespective of… race… or economic or other status.
     
     Explanation: The article describes policies that are “facially neutral, class-based” and aim to promote “geographic and socioeconomic balance” and “socioeconomic diversity.” These are direct efforts to foster the inclusion of students from various racial and economic backgrounds in elite educational institutions.
   • Target 10.3: Ensure equal opportunity and reduce inequalities of outcome, including by eliminating discriminatory… policies and practices…
     
     Explanation: The article revolves around the debate over what constitutes a fair policy. The described admissions strategies in Boston and Baltimore are presented as “race-neutral efforts to expand opportunity.” The legal challenges against them are part of a larger struggle over how to reduce “inequalities of outcome” and whether these policies are appropriate actions or a form of “unconstitutional discrimination.”

3. SDG 1: No Poverty

   • Target 1.4: By 2030, ensure that all men and women, in particular the poor and the vulnerable, have equal rights to economic resources, as well as access to basic services…
     
     Explanation: The Johns Hopkins “tuition-free medical school program for students from families earning under $300,000” is a direct measure to provide access to a critical service (higher education) by removing a significant economic barrier for students from less affluent backgrounds. This directly aligns with ensuring access to resources for the poor and vulnerable.

4. SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

   • Target 16.3: Promote the rule of law at the national and international levels and ensure equal access to justice for all.
     
     Explanation: The article is fundamentally about the interpretation of the “Equal Protection Clause” and the role of the judiciary, including the Supreme Court. The lawsuits filed by groups like the Pacific Legal Foundation and America First Legal are examples of using the legal system to challenge policies, demonstrating the ongoing process of defining “equal access” and “equal protection” through the courts.
   • Target 16.7: Ensure responsive, inclusive, participatory and representative decision-making at all levels.
     
     Explanation: The admissions policies discussed are institutional responses to the goal of achieving a “diverse student population” and creating “inclusive democracy.” The legal challenges and the policies themselves represent a societal debate over what constitutes responsive and inclusive decision-making in the context of university and school admissions.

Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

1. SDG 4: Quality Education

   • Indicator: Proportion of students from various socioeconomic backgrounds enrolled in tertiary education.
     
     Explanation: The article explicitly mentions the Johns Hopkins program targeting students from families “earning under $300,000” and the Boston policy using “neighborhood income levels.” The percentage of students admitted under these criteria is a direct, measurable indicator.
   • Indicator: Racial composition of student bodies.
     
     Explanation: The article states that the Boston policy “yields greater racial diversity” and that a claim against it is that it is a “racial proxy designed to reduce the number of white students.” This implies that the racial demographics of admitted students are a key metric being tracked and debated.

2. SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities

   • Indicator: Admissions policies based on non-racial, equity-focused criteria.
     
     Explanation: The article describes specific policies, such as Boston’s system that “allocates seats across ZIP codes based on neighborhood income levels” and Johns Hopkins’ focus on “socioeconomic diversity.” The existence and nature of these policies are indicators of efforts to reduce inequality.
   • Indicator: Data on racial wealth and opportunity gaps.
     
     Explanation: The complaint against Johns Hopkins cites “Census data on racial wealth gaps” to argue that income-based policies are racial proxies. This shows that such data is being used as an indicator to evaluate the impact and intent of these policies.

3. SDG 1: No Poverty

   • Indicator: Number of students benefiting from tuition-waiver programs based on income.
     
     Explanation: The “tuition-free medical school program” at Johns Hopkins is a specific initiative. The number of students who enroll through this program is a clear indicator of its reach in alleviating financial barriers.

4. SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

   • Indicator: Number of legal challenges and complaints filed regarding admissions policies.
     
     Explanation: The article explicitly mentions that “activists filed two new challenges,” including a “Title VI complaint” and a lawsuit. This number serves as an indicator of the level of legal contention surrounding institutional policies.
   • Indicator: Landmark judicial rulings on equality and discrimination.
     
     Explanation: The article is built around the Supreme Court’s decision in “Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard” and references other key cases like “Washington v. Davis.” These rulings are concrete indicators of how the judiciary is shaping the legal framework for institutional accountability and non-discrimination.

SDGs, Targets and Indicators

Source: talkingpointsmemo.com