A glimpse of the U.S. Supreme Court in Washington, D.C., On June 5. Alex Wong/Getty Images conceal description.
Toggle caption.
Alex Wong/Getty Photograph
A glimpse of the United States Supreme Court in Washington, D.C., On June 5.
Alex Wong/Getty Images
Supreme Court guts affirmative action, effectively ending race-conscious admissions
In a momentous ruling on Thursday, the U.S. Supreme Court brought an end to race-conscious admission programs at colleges and universities nationwide. By invalidating the admissions programs at Harvard and the University of North Carolina, the conservative supermajority of six justices made a decision that reflected ideological divisions.
They still say that they need to consider race as one of the many factors in deciding which qualified candidates to admit.
Chief Justice John Roberts, a longtime critic of affirmative action programs, wrote the decision for the court, stating that the majority of universities and colleges in the nation must use colorblind criteria in their admissions criteria.
Majority opinion
He wrote, “Our constitutional history does not tolerate choice. Many universities have wrongly concluded for too long that the touchstone of an individual’s identity is not the color of their skin, but the lessons they have learned or the skills they have built, and they have not bested challenges.”
Justice Clarence Thomas took the uncommon measure of reciting from the bench sections of his extensive concurring opinion.
“Thursday’s decision demonstrates that those policies contradict our colorblind Constitution,” he expressed, “recognizes the universities’ admissions policies for what they truly are: aimless, race-oriented preferences.”
Before the law, it is imperative that all citizens are treated with equal fairness and that all men are created equal. I firmly believe that this country will uphold its principles and that our enduring hope is to live up to the ideals of a discrimination-free society. I am acutely aware of the economic and social hardships that have befallen my race, and I acknowledge the stigma that affirmative action imposes on minorities. Justice Thomas, the second black justice to be appointed to the court, has recently reaffirmed his long-held view on this matter.
Roberts, in his statement, referred to the court’s 2003 ruling that confirmed the legality of affirmative action programs. He highlighted Justice Sandra Day O’Connor’s opinion, which indicated that there might be a need to terminate these programs in the future. According to Roberts, that anticipated point has now arrived.
Opposing view
“It feels sorrowful,” expressed President Bollinger of Columbia University, who has been a prominent advocate of affirmative action programs for three decades.
Now it’s time for a new approach. We’ve completed this long enough, and we need a whole new perspective. It feels like our country has been on a course of choosing between continuing the great era of civil rights and embracing another view.
That feeling echoed Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s disagreement
The Court subverts the constitutional guarantee of equal protection by further entrenching racial inequality, undermining our democratic government, pluralistic society, and the very foundation of education.
Jackson, the first African American woman to serve on the court, also added her perspective, stating: “However, declaring race as insignificant in the legal system does not automatically make it inconsequential in everyday life. Today, the majority abruptly declares ‘colorblindness for all’ through legal authority, displaying a lack of awareness towards the realities of the situation.”
In 2017 and 2016, when Melissa Murray, an acting dean and law professor at NYU, was the dean of admissions at the University of California, Berkeley, the use of race in college admissions decisions was prohibited by a state referendum. It is a fact that there has been a significant decrease in the admission of African American and minority students, particularly those who have benefited from affirmative action.
She stated, “There was a sudden decline in the quantity of African American students that resulted from a combination of the alteration in the admissions policy, as well as African American students opting against attending [Berkeley] under those circumstances.” “Individuals do not desire to be the center of attention. There is a certain solace in large groups, and it was exceedingly challenging for an extended period of time to attract new students under those circumstances.”
The topic of race was deliberated upon when minority students were given the opportunity to freely express their thoughts, rather than being dispersed in various classes. Clusters of African American students were specifically grouped together with the president of the state university system’s consent. According to her, the situation did indeed become very difficult.
Door is left slightly open
The court did not close the door entirely on racial considerations in college admissions. In addressing the tactic of clustering minority students in classes, Justice Roberts put forth the opinion that this should not be construed as prohibiting universities from considering how an applicant’s race may affect their life or their discussion of race. He stated, “It may seem that in every school situation, it will be so or nothing.”
What’s more, the successful affirmative action programs of the nation’s military academies may enable them to continue being able to maintain a very diverse officer corps, which the court specifically left the possibility open for.
Jerome Karabel, a professor at the University of California Berkeley, stated that “the sensitive issue of national security raises its own question, backed away from the logic that the court has followed.”
He observes that police forces looking to enlist minorities may use a similar reasoning to avoid having a predominantly white force policing a majority Black town.
However, for the colleges and universities of the nation, diversity will no longer be a valid justification for considering race.
Broader impact
The decisions made on Thursday are likely to cause ripples throughout the country, as they affect not only higher education but also selective secondary and primary schools in Latin Boston, Massachusetts and high schools in York New in the Bronx and Virginia in Thomas Jefferson, New York.
Ultimately, the effects of the Rooney Rule, which requires NFL teams to consider minority applicants when making decisions about hiring coaches, will be felt in every aspect of the nation’s social, educational, and economic life, including more workplaces and schools in DEI programs.
“We will be arguing about this for the next three decades,” stated Randall Kennedy, a law professor at Harvard University.
Edward Blum, who has been a one-man crusader against everything from the landmark Voting Rights Act of 1965 to affirmative action plans in higher education, says he knows the programs challenge minority fellowship and scholarship plans on the basis of racial preference and some corporate boards challenge them as well.
Additionally, the court’s decision on racial discrimination would result in a ban on employment, and I believe that this decision’s reasoning also considers the pending racial discrimination lawsuits, as mentioned by Karabel from UC’s.
In a previous NPR interview, Bill Lee, a co-counsel at Harvard, expressed his belief that this action would have wide-ranging consequences, impacting various institutions and industries throughout the nation.
How the case came to be
Blum, an anti-affirmative action activist, targeted these highly visible schools as his legal targets. The court’s decisions came in cases involving two elite institutions – Harvard, the oldest private university, and the University of North Carolina, the oldest public university.
The court stated at that time that race could be one of numerous elements considered by the school, just like other qualities such as being a legacy student or having special accomplishments in various fields like science or athletics, being raised on a farm, or having knowledge of geography. Consequently, the school’s acknowledgment of race as a factor in achieving a diverse student body was deemed comparable to its consideration of other attributes, leading to the establishment of affirmative action programs in 1978 by the Supreme Court. In contrast to Harvard, UNC was not mandated by federal courts to admit Black undergraduates until 1955.
The system that has remained in place at most higher learning institutions across the United States, including Harvard, was twice reaffirmed by the Supreme Court last year when it upended decades of its own precedent in the case of abortion, but not until Thursday.
SFFA asserted that the schools discriminated against Asian American students who had SAT and grade scores higher than any other racial group, including whites, and who made up, at Harvard, for instance, 29% of the entering class last year. The court majority made it clear that it agreed with Students For Fair Admissions, which sued Harvard and UNC, claiming, among other things, that Asians are just 7.2% of the U.S. Population, though SFFA asserted that the number should have been higher than that. At Harvard, for example, Asian American students, who had SAT and grade scores higher than any other racial group, including whites, made up 29% of the entering class last year. The schools discriminated against these students, and Students For Fair Admissions agreed with the court majority, among other things.
Over the past four years, the number of individuals applying in 2023 has nearly doubled. However, the latest incoming class at Harvard does not have comparable statistics. For instance, the class of 2019 had 35,000 applicants, with more than 8,000 having perfect grade point averages, 2,700 scoring perfectly on the verbal SAT, and 3,700 achieving perfect math SAT scores. Harvard receives thousands of applicants who are equally qualified, but each class only has 1,600 available spots. In defense of its current affirmative action approach, Harvard pointed out this fact.
What the public thinks
The poll shows that public opinion on affirmative action is mixed and nuanced, with approximately 50% supporting it and less than 60% approving of programs and actions that show preference towards certain groups. However, the poll also reveals that there is some conflict and disagreement on this subject. It is important to note that public opinion on affirmative action is not the same as public opinion on controversial topics like abortion. Therefore, the reaction to Thursday’s decision may cause consternation in some quarters, but it does not reflect the overall public opinion on affirmative action.
Indeed, in California, %57 of voters cast their ballots in favor of reinstating affirmative action in public colleges and universities, a liberal stance in the state.
At universities, the data revealed significant majorities supporting initiatives to enhance racial inclusivity when the query was posed in a slightly altered manner. However, in terms of college admissions, a recent poll conducted by The Washington Post and Schar School discovered that 60% of Americans believe that race should not be taken into consideration. With the result varying based on the phrasing of the question, the public is divided on this issue, although surveys demonstrate that overall support for affirmative action has increased in recent years.
However, none of the alternatives to affirmative action have been as effective as taking race into some consideration.
Colleges say they have tried to increase the number of Latin0 and Black students without considering race by offering admission guarantees to students in the top 5% or 10% of their high school class, regardless of their economic status or other programs.
University of Texas professor Stella Flores, whose expertise lies in higher education and public policy, stated in an interview with NPR last autumn that, apart from considering race, the research is unequivocal. No other approach exists that can effectively promote racial diversity among student populations.
Court’s ‘double tak’
In the Supreme Court’s Opinion Thursday, Professor Kennedy of Harvard points out what “double-talk” means. He contrasts it with a sign that says “Welcome Black people” and another sign that says “stay out” to Black people.
It seems that at least one side of the Supreme Court is inclined to say yes to racially discriminatory practices, according to its opinion at the end of the Court’s Supreme. However, the Supreme Court’s opinion suggests that someone who has overcome racial obstacles can be favorably looked upon. Both sides of the Supreme Court seem to agree that there exists racial discrimination. Both of them have a racial bias.
“I believe we are at an extremely crucial juncture,” expressed Columbia President Bollinger, who, previously in his profession, influenced the affirmative action initiative at the University of Michigan, a program that was upheld in 2003. He observes a significant shift in the admissions systems’ landscape, with the steady decline of school rankings and a reduced focus on standardized test scores. Bollinger highlights that Columbia University enrolls a greater number of veterans compared to any other Ivy League institution. “I anticipate a substantial amount of experimentation in the admissions process, as it should occur throughout the upcoming decade.”
The significance of Thursday’s decision was highlighted by the fact that, in total, six justices wrote separately. During the court session, three justices expressed their opinions – the chief justice in the majority, Thomas in agreement, and Sotomayor in disagreement. The Supreme Court’s decisions, along with dissents and concurrences, filled a book-sized 237 pages when printed.
Ethnicity has always been a challenging topic for Americans to confront, and it is about to become even more difficult.
Meghanlata Gupta played a part in this story