Race-Based Admissions at Harvard and U.N.C.
Race-Based Admissions at Harvard and U.N.C.
The decision is probably going to change how elite schools admit students to college. What you should know is as follows.
The Supreme Court declared on Thursday that Harvard and the University of North Carolina’s racial preference admissions policies are unconstitutional, upending decades of precedent on a divisive topic in American society.
The two programmes “unavoidably employ race in a negative manner” and “involve racial stereotyping,” according to Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., writing for the 6-3 majority. This is against the law.
Universities may take into account how a student’s race has affected their life—a subject they may discuss in an application essay, for instance—but he cautioned colleges not to exploit such concerns as a covert method of racial selection. “Universities may not simply establish through application essays or other means the regime we hold unlawful today,” he wrote.
In a rare gesture, Justice Sonia Sotomayor offered a brief summary of her dissent from the bench, expressing her grave disapproval of the decision she claimed was “further entrenching racial inequality in education.”
It is impossible to express how heartbreaking this choice is, she wrote.
Many Americans supported the choice, especially Republican leaders and conservative organisations. According to a number of recent surveys, the majority of Americans oppose using race as a criterion for admission.
The head of one of the biggest conservative organisations in the country, the American Conservative Union, Matt Schlapp, stated that the court’s ruling and the one from the previous year that eliminated the right to an abortion “serve as a triumphant return to restoring our tattered Constitution.”
After it was announced, President Biden criticised the decision in a televised speech, stating that the nation could not allow it to be “the last word” on the subject of affirmative action.
He repeated himself with emphasis, “Discrimination still exists in America.” The ruling of today doesn’t alter that.
Observe the following:
Adam Liptak, the top Supreme Court correspondent for The New York Times, has written a comprehensive description of the ruling.
The opinions in the case total 237 pages and include concurring views from Justices Brett M. Kavanaugh, Clarence Thomas, and Neil Gorsuch as well as another dissenting opinion from Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson. (Justice Jackson withdrew from the Harvard case because she had served on the board of trustees for the university.) Views can be read here.
The longtime opponent of racial preferences, Chief Justice Roberts, emphasised that students “must be treated based on his or her experiences as an individual.” Because of this, admissions essays are expected to become an important platform for students to talk about their racial and cultural backgrounds.
According to a recent Pew Research Centre poll, the majority of Americans agreed that race shouldn’t be taken into account when deciding who gets into colleges, reflecting the country’s disagreement over affirmative action. Conservative organisations and potential Republican presidential candidates applauded the decision. Democrats condemned it, including former President Barack Obama.
The decision will probably push schools to reconsider their admissions policies. However, it might also have an impact outside of higher education and pave the way for obstacles to diversity initiatives in the corporate sphere.
The equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment was mentioned in the majority opinion. Here is a quick glossary of key terms and examples of their usage in relation to the problem.
The two lawsuits were initiated by Students for Fair Admissions, a group formed by Edward Blum, a legal activist who has spearheaded numerous legal actions opposing racial discrimination in voting rights and admissions practises, some of which have made it all the way to the Supreme Court. He warned college and university administrators not to try to come up with workarounds so that racial considerations might be taken into account, saying his organisation would be “vigilant” in making sure the judgement is followed.
