Summary AFFIRMATIVE ACTION FALLS | News | The Harvard Crimson www.thecrimson.com
1,225 words - html page - View html page
One Line
The Supreme Court declares affirmative action in higher education admissions unconstitutional, ruling against Harvard and UNC, which is a setback for Harvard's admissions practices and has implications for universities nationwide.
Slides
Slide Presentation (8 slides)
Key Points
- The Supreme Court declared affirmative action in higher education admissions unconstitutional in a ruling against Harvard and the University of North Carolina.
- The ruling marks a major setback for Harvard, which has faced scrutiny for its admissions practices since 2014.
- The lawsuit alleged that Harvard's admissions processes discriminate against Asian Americans in violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
- The Supreme Court ruled that Harvard's and UNC's admission policies violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment and must comply with strict scrutiny.
- Despite the ruling, universities may still consider how an applicant's race has shaped their personal identity.
Summaries
82 word summary
The Supreme Court declares affirmative action in higher education admissions unconstitutional, ruling against Harvard and UNC. The Court's decision is a setback for Harvard, facing scrutiny for admissions practices discriminating against Asian Americans. The ruling states that admission policies violated the Equal Protection Clause but allows consideration of race in personal identity. Justice Sotomayor dissents, arguing the ruling entrenches racial inequality. Harvard commits to diversity while abiding by the ruling. This overturns two lower court decisions and has implications for universities nationwide.
157 word summary
The Supreme Court has declared affirmative action in higher education admissions unconstitutional, ruling against Harvard and the University of North Carolina. The Court's decision, expected due to its conservative majority, marks a major setback for Harvard, which has faced scrutiny for its admissions practices since 2014. The lawsuit alleged that Harvard's admissions processes discriminate against Asian Americans. The Court ruled that Harvards and UNCs admission policies violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment and must comply with strict scrutiny. However, universities may still consider how an applicant's race has shaped their personal identity. In a dissenting opinion, Associate Justice Sonia M. Sotomayor argued that the ruling entrenches racial inequality. Harvard has affirmed its commitment to diversity while promising to abide by the ruling. The ruling overturns two lower court decisions in Harvard's favor. The decision has far-reaching implications for universities across the country, and The Crimson will provide further analysis in a special print edition.