[Yahoo] The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday struck down race-conscious student admissions programs currently used at Harvard University and the University of North Carolina in a sharp setback to affirmative action policies often used increase the number of Black, Hispanic and other underrepresented minority groups on campuses.The justices ruled in favor of a group called Students for Fair Admissions, founded by anti-affirmative action activist Edward Blum, in its appeal of lower court rulings upholding programs used at the two prestigious schools to foster a diverse student population.
The affirmative action cases represented the latest major rulings powered by the Supreme Court's conservative majority. The court in June 2022 overturned the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that had legalized abortion nationwide and widened gun rights in a pair of landmark rulings.
Many institutions of higher education, corporations and military leaders have long backed affirmative action on campuses not simply to remedy racial inequity and exclusion in American life but to ensure a talent pool that can bring a range of perspectives to the workplace and U.S. armed forces ranks.
According to Harvard, around 40% of U.S. colleges and universities consider race in some fashion.
Harvard and UNC have said they use race as only one factor in a host of individualized evaluations for admission without quotas - permissible under previous Supreme Court precedents - and that curbing its consideration would cause a significant drop in enrollment of students from under-represented groups.
Critics, who have tried to topple these policies for decades, argue these policies are themselves discriminatory.
Many U.S. conservatives and Republican elected officials have argued that giving advantages to one race is unconstitutional regardless of the motivation or circumstances. Some have advanced the argument that remedial preferences are no longer needed because America has moved beyond racist policies of the past such as segregation and is becoming increasingly diverse.
The dispute presented the Supreme Court's conservative majority an opportunity to overturn its prior rulings allowing race-conscious admissions policies.
Blum's group in lawsuits filed in 2014 accused UNC of discriminating against white and Asian American applicants and Harvard of bias against Asian American applicants.
Students for Fair Admissions alleged that the adoption by UNC, a public university, of an admissions policy that is not race neutral violates the guarantee to equal protection of the law under the U.S. Constitution's 14th Amendment.
The group contended Harvard, a private university violated Title VI of a landmark federal law called the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which bars discrimination based on race, color or national origin under any program or activity receiving federal financial assistance.
Lower courts rejected the group's claims, prompting appeals to the U.S. Supreme Court asking the justices to overturn a key precedent holding that colleges could consider race as one factor in the admissions process because of the compelling interest of creating a diverse student body.
Affirmative action has withstood Supreme Court scrutiny for decades, most recently in a 2016 ruling involving a white student, backed by Blum, who sued the University of Texas after being rejected for admission.
The Supreme Court has shifted rightward since 2016 and now includes three justices who dissented in the University of Texas case and three new appointees by former Republican President Donald Trump.
| Courtesy of Skidmark, update from Fox News at 12:15 pm ET: |
In a 6-3 decision, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the majority opinion that, "A benefit to a student who overcame racial discrimÂination, for example, must be tied to that student’s courage and determination."
"Or a benefit to a student whose heritÂage or culture motivated him or her to assume a leadership role or attain a particular goal must be tied to that student’s unique ability to contribute to the university. In other words, the student must be treated based on his or her exÂperiences as an individual—not on the basis of race," the opinion reads.
"Many universities have for too long done just the oppoÂsite. And in doing so, they have concluded, wrongly, that the touchstone of an individual’s identity is not challenges bested, skills built, or lessons learned but the color of their skin. Our constitutional history does not tolerate that choice," the opinion states.
Justice Roberts was joined by Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote the main dissent, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and in part by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, who recused herself from the Harvard case due to her previous role on Harvard's Board of Overseers.
| "We did not fight a civil war about oboe players," Roberts shot back. "We did fight a civil war to eliminate racial discrimination." |
Students for Fair Admissions, a student activist group, brought cases against both Harvard and University of North Carolina. The group initially sued Harvard College in 2014 for violating Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, which "prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin in any program or activity that receives Federal funds or other Federal financial assistance."
The complaint against Harvard alleged that the school's practices penalized Asian American students, and that they failed to employ race-neutral practices. The North Carolina case raised the issue of whether the university could reject the use of non-race-based practices without showing that they would bring down the school's academic quality or negatively impact the benefits gained from campus diversity.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit had ruled in Harvard's favor, upholding the outcome of a district court bench trial. The district court said that the evidence against Harvard was inconclusive and that "the observed discrimination" affected only a small pool of Asian American students. It ruled that SFFA did not have standing in the case.
In the UNC case, a federal district court ruled in the school's favor, saying that its admissions practices withstood strict scrutiny.
The affirmative action cases gave rise to one of the most spirited court debates to occur within the Supreme Court building this past term, with Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito grilling Harvard's lawyer, Seth Waxman.
Alito pressed Waxman on why it is that Asian American students regularly receive lower personal scores on their applications than other races. Waxman talked around the justice's questions, causing Alito to get frustrated with the lawyer.
"I still haven't heard any explanation for the disparity between the personal scores that are given to Asians," Alito said.
Waxman then got into a tense back-and-forth with Roberts. The justice asked why Waxman was downplaying race as a factor in admissions decisions, when according to Roberts it must have some impact, or else it would not be included.
Waxman admitted that race was decisive "for some highly qualified applicants," just like "being … an oboe player in a year in which the Harvard-Radcliffe Orchestra needs an oboe player."
"We did not fight a civil war about oboe players," Roberts shot back. "We did fight a civil war to eliminate racial discrimination."
Related:
Affirmative action: 2023-06-19 Why scrapping standardized tests is bad for college applicant
Affirmative action: 2023-06-09 Gov. Kathy Hochul appoints Seth Marnin as first openly male transgender judge in US history
Affirmative action: 2023-06-05 Merit Doesn't Matter Anymore
Affirmative action: 2023-06-19 Why scrapping standardized tests is bad for college applicant
Affirmative action: 2023-06-09 Gov. Kathy Hochul appoints Seth Marnin as first openly male transgender judge in US history
Affirmative action: 2023-06-05 Merit Doesn't Matter Anymore
Related:
Students for Fair Admissions: 2023-06-05 Merit Doesn't Matter Anymore
Students for Fair Admissions: 2022-11-02 Supreme Court Poised to Strike Down Racial Preferences
Students for Fair Admissions: 2022-11-01 Justice Thomas Unloads on Lawyer Defending Affirmative Action: 'Diversity Seems to Mean Everything for Everyone'
Students for Fair Admissions: 2023-06-05 Merit Doesn't Matter Anymore
Students for Fair Admissions: 2022-11-02 Supreme Court Poised to Strike Down Racial Preferences
Students for Fair Admissions: 2022-11-01 Justice Thomas Unloads on Lawyer Defending Affirmative Action: 'Diversity Seems to Mean Everything for Everyone'