Summary Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard College www.supremecourt.gov
80,835 words - PDF document - View PDF document
One Line
The Court ruled that Harvard and UNC violated the Equal Protection Clause by using race-based admissions, undermining diversity goals and perpetuating stereotypes, while the dissent argued for indefinite race-based affirmative action, causing criticism for hindering progress in achieving racial equality.
Slides
Slide Presentation (11 slides)
Key Points
- Harvard College and UNC both use race as a factor in their admissions process, which raises concerns about whether it violates the Equal Protection Clause.
- The Supreme Court ruled that both programs violate the Equal Protection Clause and emphasized the principle of equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment.
- The Court recognized that racial distinctions work to subordinate students and that separate cannot be equal.
- Admissions programs must have focused and measurable objectives tied to an applicant's qualities or abilities, not just race.
- The Court's previous rulings established that race can be a factor in admissions but with limitations on how it is used.
- Discrimination against Asian Americans in college admissions is unjust.
- The Supreme Court's decision in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard College ends university exceptionalism and reaffirms that the Equal Protection Clause requires strict scrutiny for any use of race in admissions.
- The Court's decision undermines progress in achieving racial equality in education.
Summaries
229 word summary
Harvard College and UNC were sued by Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA) for their race-based admissions programs, found to violate the Equal Protection Clause. The Court emphasized equal protection, rejected the use of racial categories in admissions, and established limitations on race-based admissions. Harvard's admissions process undermined diversity goals and perpetuated stereotypes. The dissent ignored the requirement to end race-based admissions. The Court ruled that universities must justify using race in admissions, criticized affirmative action policies, and highlighted the flaws in the classification system used to collect data on race. Both Harvard and UNC engaged in intentional discrimination based on race and violated Title VI. The Court's decision ends university exceptionalism and requires strict scrutiny for any use of race in admissions. The dissent argues for indefinite race-based affirmative action. The decision is criticized for undermining progress in achieving racial equality and ignoring ongoing racial inequality. It hinders efforts to address these issues at universities like Harvard and UNC. The Court declined to address arguments about Title VI. Harvard's admissions process considers various factors, including race, and eliminating race would decrease African American and Hispanic representation. The decision contradicts previous precedent and harms underrepresented minority students and diversity progress. The University of North Carolina's holistic admissions process is constitutional and necessary for a more functional multiracial democracy. The Court's conclusion on racial diversity goes against the Equal Protection Clause.
623 word summary
Harvard College and UNC were sued by Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA) for their use of race-based admissions programs, which were found to violate the Equal Protection Clause by the Supreme Court. The Court emphasized the principle of equal protection and recognized that racial distinctions are unequal. The use of racial categories in admissions programs was deemed overbroad, arbitrary, and underinclusive. The Court stated that admissions programs should have measurable objectives tied to an applicant's qualities or abilities, rather than just race. The Court's previous rulings in Bakke and Grutter established limitations on the use of race in admissions. Harvard's admissions process, which groups Asian students together and uses imprecise racial categories, was found to undermine diversity goals and perpetuate stereotypes. The dissenting opinions ignored the requirement to end race-based admissions programs. The Constitution prohibits all forms of racial discrimination, including affirmative action. The Thirteenth Amendment, Civil Rights Act of 1866, and Fourteenth Amendment aimed to eliminate slavery, ensure equality, and protect citizens from discriminatory legislation. The Court ruled that universities must justify using race in admissions based on concrete evidence and only recognizes the educational benefits of diversity as a compelling interest. Affirmative action policies were criticized for failing to address academic underperformance, causing harm to successful minority students, and perpetuating racial division. Justice Jackson's dissent supported race-conscious admissions, but the importance of individual experiences over race was emphasized. The case of Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard College highlighted the unconstitutionality of race-conscious admissions policies and the flawed classification system used by colleges to collect data on race. Both Harvard and UNC were found to engage in intentional discrimination based on race and were in violation of Title VI. The dissent neglected to mention the impact of Harvard's admissions policy on Asian Americans. SFFA proposed alternatives to race-based admissions, such as reducing legacy preferences, but Harvard resisted these proposals and prioritized preferred groups. The Bakke case established that some racial preferences may be permissible, but the admissions program at issue violated equal protection.
The Supreme Court's decision in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard College establishes that the Equal Protection Clause requires strict scrutiny for any use of race in admissions, ending university exceptionalism. The ruling applies to the admissions process for the college class of 2028 and emphasizes that race-based affirmative action programs must be narrowly tailored and limited in time. However, the dissent argues for indefinite race-based affirmative action. The Court's decision is criticized for undermining progress in achieving racial equality in education and ignoring ongoing racial inequality, including disparities in school funding and racial segregation. The decision hinders efforts to address these issues at universities like Harvard and UNC, both of which have histories of racial exclusion and discrimination. The Court declined to address arguments about Title VI, and the lower courts found flaws in the alternatives proposed by Students for Fair Admissions. Harvard's admissions process considers various factors, including race, and the courts rejected the claim that its use of race is unconstitutional. Eliminating race in admissions would decrease African American and Hispanic representation. The Court's decision contradicts previous precedent and prevents skin color from being considered in assessing diversity. The dissent argues that race-conscious admissions policies are necessary for diversity and combatting burdens on students of color. The Court's decision harms underrepresented minority students and diversity progress, limiting diverse pipelines to leadership roles and perpetuating racial inequality. Historical government policies have created intergenerational inequality, and the COVID-19 pandemic has exacerbated these disparities. The University of North Carolina's holistic admissions process, which considers race as one factor among many, is constitutional and necessary for a more functional multiracial democracy. The Court's conclusion on racial diversity in higher education is counterproductive and goes against the Equal Protection Clause.
1636 word summary
Harvard College and UNC both use race as a factor in their admissions process, which raises concerns about whether it violates the Equal Protection Clause. Lawsuits were filed against both institutions by Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA), arguing that their race-based admissions programs violate Title VI of the Civil Rights Act and the Equal Protection Clause. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled that both programs violate the Equal Protection Clause and emphasized the principle of equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court recognized that racial distinctions work to subordinate students and that separate cannot be equal. The use of racial categories in admissions programs is overbroad, arbitrary, and underinclusive. The Court also highlighted the importance of diversity and training future leaders but stated that these goals are not sufficiently measurable. The Supreme Court evaluated the admissions processes at Harvard and UNC and found that they fail strict scrutiny and violate the Equal Protection Clause. Admissions programs must have focused and measurable objectives tied to an applicant's qualities or abilities, not just race. The Court emphasized that the color of one's skin should not be the defining factor in college admissions.
The Court's history of caution regarding race-based state action is relevant to the case involving Harvard's consideration of race in admissions decisions. The Court's previous rulings in Bakke and Grutter established that race can be a factor in admissions but with limitations on how it is used. Harvard's admissions process, which groups Asian students together and uses imprecise racial categories, undermines the goal of promoting diversity. Admissions programs that use race-based classifications are pernicious and perpetuate stereotypes. Harvard and UNC's admissions programs lack a clear endpoint and rely on numerical benchmarks for representation and diversity. The dissenting opinions in the case ignore previous rulings and the requirement to end race-based admissions programs. Admissions should be based on individual experiences, not race. The Constitution prohibits all forms of discrimination based on race, including affirmative action. The Thirteenth Amendment and Civil Rights Act of 1866 aimed to eliminate slavery and ensure equality for all citizens, regardless of race. Congress' authority to pass the Act was debated, leading to appeals to other sources of constitutional authority. Proposals for amendments were submitted to ensure equal treatment without regard to race.
The Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment aimed to clarify citizenship and ensure equality for all citizens, regardless of race. Early Supreme Court opinions recognized that the Amendment protected all citizens from discriminatory legislation. While some argue for an "antisubordination" view of the Fourteenth Amendment, the original meaning supports a colorblind interpretation. The text discusses the need for discrete remedial measures to address government-imposed inequality and emphasizes the demand for color-blind laws. The Supreme Court has ruled that universities must justify using race in admissions based on concrete evidence. The Court recognizes only the educational benefits of diversity as a compelling interest. The Court rejects broad remedial interests and emphasizes the need for a close remedial fit to past discrimination. Discrimination on the basis of race undermines the principle of equality. The Constitution's colorblind rule is rooted in the idea that all men are created equal. Racial preferences in college admissions can lead to mismatching and harm even successful minority students. Affirmative action programs fail to address academic underperformance and racial stigma.
Discrimination against Asian Americans in college admissions is unjust. Affirmative action policies perpetuate racial division and fail to recognize the diversity within racial groups. Justice Jackson's dissent supports race-conscious admissions, but statistical gaps between races are irrelevant. Individuals should be judged based on their unique experiences, not their race. Universities can achieve diversity through race-neutral means. The benefits of meritocratic systems and historically Black colleges are emphasized. The case of Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard College is discussed, highlighting the unconstitutionality of race-conscious admissions policies. Title VI of the Civil Rights Act prohibits intentional racial discrimination. Both Harvard and UNC use race in their admissions decisions, resulting in a penalty against certain racial groups. The classification system used by colleges and universities to collect data on race is flawed. High school students of Asian descent are advised to downplay their heritage to increase their chances of admission. Both Harvard and UNC intentionally treat applicants differently based on race. The racial composition of Harvard's incoming classes suggests a focus on race rather than demographics. SFFA proposes alternatives to race-based admissions, such as reducing legacy preferences. Harvard resists these proposals and prioritizes preferred groups. Title VI prohibits intentional discrimination based on race. The dissent neglects to mention that Harvard's admissions policy results in fewer Asian Americans being admitted. UNC admissions officers engage in discriminatory practices based on race. Both universities are in violation of Title VI. The Bakke case established that some racial preferences may be permissible, but the admissions program at issue violated equal protection.
The Supreme Court's decision in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard College ends university exceptionalism and reaffirms that the Equal Protection Clause requires strict scrutiny for any use of race in admissions. The Court recognizes that Title VI of the Civil Rights Act provides sufficient guidance on racial discrimination. Race-based affirmative action programs must be narrowly tailored and limited in time. The Court's ruling applies to the admissions process for the college class of 2028. The dissent argues for indefinite race-based affirmative action, but the Court's precedents establish a limit. The Court's decision undermines progress in achieving racial equality in education. The Reconstruction era aimed to secure civil rights for Black Americans through race-conscious laws and the establishment of Historically Black Colleges and Universities. Congress rejected colorblindness and recognized white privileges. The Supreme Court's decisions, including Plessy v. Ferguson, perpetuated segregation and destroyed equal opportunity. Desegregation cases aimed to achieve racial equality of opportunity, not race-blindness. The Court's decision is criticized for recharacterizing the importance of racial diversity and ignoring ongoing racial inequality. Disparities in school funding, racial segregation, and systemic inequities hinder underrepresented minorities' chances in college admissions.
Latino and Black students face barriers in higher education, perpetuating racial inequality. UNC and Harvard have histories of racial exclusion and discrimination. The Supreme Court's decision hinders efforts to address these issues. Harvard and UNC's admissions programs comply with Title VI. The Court declined to address arguments about Title VI. The cases arrived at the Court after trials, with Harvard and UNC providing evidence. SFFA challenges Harvard's and UNC's race-based admissions policies, arguing for race-neutral alternatives. The lower courts found flaws in SFFA's proposed alternatives. Harvard and UNC's policies were deemed narrowly tailored. Harvard considered race-neutral alternatives but found them unworkable. SFFA's arguments were rejected. Harvard's admissions process is competitive and considers various factors, including race. The courts rejected SFFA's claim that Harvard's use of race is unconstitutional. Eliminating race in admissions would decrease African American and Hispanic representation. The use of race at UNC has a smaller effect. The majority's conclusion about Harvard engaging in racial balancing is unsupported. The Court overrules precedents and damages representation and institutional legitimacy. Limited use of race in college admissions is constitutional. The Court's decision contradicts previous precedent. The Court prevents skin color from being considered in assessing diversity. The Court's exemption for military academies is arbitrary. Some concurring opinions agree that racial classifications are permissible. The majority's ruling devalues racial integration in higher education. Harvard and UNC's holistic review policies allow for a diverse class. The Court's objection ignores the larger admissions puzzle where most pieces disadvantage underrepresented minorities. The Court's conclusion is unfair to non-underrepresented groups. The Court burdens racial minorities and disproportionately affects minority students. The Court's demand for discussion of racial self-identification perpetuates a false narrative. The Court imposes its preferred college application format without recognizing unique perspectives based on racial identity.
The dissenting opinion argues that race-conscious admissions policies are necessary for diversity and combatting burdens on students of color. The Court's decision allows for consideration of socioeconomic factors in admissions but undermines diversity. The dissent criticizes the Court's view on racial categories and expiration dates for race-conscious programs. Justice Kavanaugh's arguments are deemed irrelevant, while Justice Thomas's arguments lack merit. There is no evidence of discrimination against Asian American students. The trial for Students for Fair Admissions discrimination claim was lost. Race-conscious admissions benefit all students and have increased enrollment rates for underrepresented minorities. The Court's decision harms underrepresented minority students and diversity progress. Racial diversity is essential for various industries and professions. The ruling limits diverse pipelines to leadership roles and perpetuates racial inequality. True equality requires considering race in admissions. The Court overlooks the benefits and fairness of race-conscious admissions. Historical government policies have created intergenerational inequality and disparities in wealth, income, and well-being. These disparities persist at all income and education levels. The COVID-19 pandemic has exacerbated these disparities, leading to negative impacts on the Black community.
The University of North Carolina's admissions process is holistic and considers race as one factor among many. Applicants are not required to disclose their race, but those who do have the opportunity for a race-linked plus. The admissions process evaluates applicants based on 40 criteria, aiming to assess the full person and their potential for success. UNC also considers other forms of diversity like socioeconomic status and political beliefs. Admissions programs that consider race are justified by the existing race-linked gaps in society and aim to create equal opportunities. The elimination of race-linked preferences would widen the gap rather than narrow it. Holistic admissions programs promote racial diversity on campus, improve learning outcomes, reduce prejudice, and benefit society as a whole. The Court's decision to mandate race-blind admissions disregards the importance of addressing racism and impedes progress towards equality. UNC's holistic review program is constitutional and necessary for a more functional multiracial democracy. The Court's conclusion on racial diversity in higher education is counterproductive and goes against the Equal Protection Clause.
7975 word summary
Harvard College and UNC employ race as a factor in their admissions process, raising the question of whether it violates the Equal Protection Clause. Harvard uses a multi-step process that considers race at various stages, while UNC assigns numerical ratings that may include a "plus" for race. Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA) filed lawsuits against both institutions, arguing that their race-based admissions programs violate Title VI of the Civil Rights Act and the Equal Protection Clause. Both programs were initially found permissible, but the Supreme Court ultimately ruled that they violate the Equal Protection Clause. The Court determined that SFFA had standing to bring the lawsuit and emphasized the principle of equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment, highlighting the history of state-mandated segregation and the Court's role in perpetuating it.
The Court recognizes that racial distinctions, even those argued to have no palpable effect, work to subordinate students. Separate cannot be equal, and the right to public education must be made available to all on equal terms. The Equal Protection Clause applies universally without regard to race or nationality. Exceptions to the Clause's guarantee must survive strict scrutiny. Race-based state action is odious to a free people founded on equality. In Bakke, the Court found that obtaining educational benefits from a racially diverse student body is a compelling interest, but racial and ethnic distinctions are inherently suspect. A university can only use race as a "plus" in an applicant's file and must consider all pertinent elements of diversity. In Grutter, the Court endorsed Justice Powell's view that student body diversity is a compelling state interest that can justify the use of race in university admissions.
Grutter established limits on race-based admissions to prevent stereotyping and discrimination. The Court expected race-based preferences to end in 25 years, but they continue. Harvard's and UNC's admissions programs fail strict scrutiny and violate the Equal Protection Clause. The goals of diversity and training future leaders are not sufficiently measurable. The use of racial categories is overbroad, arbitrary, and underinclusive. Deference to universities must be within constitutional limits. Admissions programs disadvantage Asian-American students and engage in stereotyping. There is no logical end point or clear criteria for determining success. Periodic review does not make unconstitutional conduct constitutional. Admissions programs must have focused and measurable objectives tied to an applicant's qualities or abilities, not just race. The color of one's skin should not be the defining factor in college admissions.
The Supreme Court reversed the decisions in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard College and Students for Fair Admissions v. University of North Carolina, considering whether their admissions systems are lawful under the Equal Protection Clause. The admissions process at Harvard involves initial screening, subcommittees, full committee meetings, and a final stage called the "lop." Race is taken into account at multiple stages. The University of North Carolina, founded shortly after the Constitution was ratified, is the nation's first public university.
UNC's admissions process is highly selective, with 43,500 applications for a freshman class of 4,200. Applications are initially reviewed by 40 admissions office readers who consider race as one factor. Underrepresented minority students receive higher personal ratings but lower ratings in other areas. Admissions decisions may consider race. SFFA filed lawsuits against Harvard and UNC, arguing that race-based admissions violated Title VI and the Equal Protection Clause.
The Harvard admissions program was found to be in compliance with precedents on race in college admissions. The UNC admissions program was also deemed permissible. The Supreme Court evaluated Harvard's program under the Equal Protection Clause. SFFA had standing to bring its claims against Harvard. The standing requirements of Article III were satisfied, and SFFA could represent its members.
In the case of Hunt, a state agency without traditional membership challenged a labeling requirement for apples. The Supreme Court recognized the agency's standing because it effectively represented apple growers and dealers who elected and served on the Commission. This analysis does not apply to Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA), a voluntary membership organization with identified members. SFFA complied with the standing requirements and its obligations under Article III.
The Fourteenth Amendment aimed to provide equal protection of the laws to all citizens, regardless of race or color. The Court initially embraced these aims, but later failed to live up to them during an era of state-mandated segregation. The separate but equal regime, upheld in Plessy v. Ferguson, defaced much of America. The aspirations of the framers of the Equal Protection Clause were stifled for too long.
In the mid-20th century, court cases attempted to address racial inequality in education by requiring equal opportunities for black students. However, it became clear that this approach was flawed because even seemingly equal separation perpetuated subordination. In 1950, the Supreme Court recognized that separate cannot be equal. The landmark case of Brown v. Board of Education in 1954 declared racial segregation in public schools unconstitutional, emphasizing that even if facilities were equal, separating students based on race generated feelings of inferiority. The right to a public education must be available to all on equal terms without using race as a factor. This principle was reaffirmed in subsequent cases, extending beyond education to other areas of life. The Court consistently invalidated race-based state actions, emphasizing equality before the law. The Court continued to uphold the Constitution's promise of racial equality in the following decades.
The text highlights the history of eliminating racial discrimination in various aspects of American society. It emphasizes the core purpose of the Equal Protection Clause and the guarantee of equal protection for all individuals, regardless of race or color. The text also mentions the strict scrutiny standard that must be applied to any exception to equal protection. Two compelling interests that permit race-based government action are identified: remediation of past discrimination and diversity in education.
The Court has historically been cautious in accepting race-based state action, as distinctions based on ancestry are contrary to the doctrine of equality. The case involves whether a university can consider an applicant's race in admissions decisions. The Court first considered this issue in Regents of University of California v. Bakke, ruling in favor of the school in part and in favor of the plaintiff in part. Justice Powell's opinion in Bakke has served as the foundation for analyzing race-conscious admissions policies. The school's justifications for its policy were found to be insufficient, except for the goal of obtaining educational benefits from a racially diverse student body. However, a university's freedom in selecting its student body is not unlimited.
Race-based admissions policies in universities have been a subject of debate and legal scrutiny. Justice Powell's opinion in the 1978 case, Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, established that race could be considered as a "plus" factor in admissions, but it had to be weighed flexibly and not used to exclude individuals. The 2003 case, Grutter v. Bollinger, endorsed Justice Powell's view and held that student body diversity was a compelling state interest that could justify the use of race in admissions. However, the Court imposed limits on the means by which universities could pursue diversity, such as prohibiting quotas and separate admissions tracks based on race. The Court also expressed discomfort with the use of racial preferences and emphasized the need for race-conscious admissions programs to have reasonable durational limits. Despite this, there is still no clear end in sight for race-based admissions at Harvard University.
Harvard and UNC argue that race-based admissions are necessary, but they fail to meet strict scrutiny requirements. The universities' goals, such as training leaders and promoting diversity, are not measurable or coherent. The interests they assert are difficult to evaluate and lack a meaningful connection to their admissions programs. The universities use imprecise racial categories in their admissions decisions without demonstrating how it furthers their educational benefits.
Harvard's admissions process groups together all Asian students without considering the diversity within the category. Other racial categories, such as "Hispanic," are arbitrary or undefined. The use of opaque racial categories undermines the goal of promoting diversity. Universities argue for deference in using race as a factor in admissions, but it must be within constitutionally prescribed limits. Admissions programs that use race-based classifications do not meet the standard of justification and are pernicious. Harvard's consideration of race has led to a decrease in the number of Asian-Americans admitted. Admissions processes that favor some applicants disadvantage others. Respondents claim that race is not a negative factor, but it impacts admissions decisions and changes the demographics of admitted classes. Universities cannot operate on the belief that minority students express a characteristic viewpoint.
The admissions programs at Harvard and UNC rely on race as a determining factor, which goes against the rejection of racial stereotypes. Both universities admit that race alone explains admissions decisions for many applicants. These programs perpetuate stereotypes and treat individuals differently based on their race, which is contrary to the Equal Protection Clause. Additionally, the admissions programs lack a clear endpoint and rely on numerical benchmarks for representation and diversity. Harvard's admissions process focuses on maintaining specific racial percentages in each class. UNC's admissions program operates similarly.
The University of Harvard's admission and enrollment practices focus on underrepresented minorities. However, their approach of using racial balancing and proportional representation is unconstitutional. The relevance of past observations about Asian students' enrollment at Harvard is lost. Respondents argue for the continued use of race-based admissions, but it is unclear how to determine when stereotypes have broken down or when diversity goals have been met. The 25-year mark mentioned in Grutter, which suggested that race-based preferences would no longer be necessary by 2028, has been oversold. Both Harvard and UNC expect to continue using race as a criterion beyond that time limit. Respondents claim that their programs can be periodically reviewed to determine their necessity, but this does not make unconstitutional conduct constitutional. Harvard and UNC have not set an end point for their race-based admissions programs. There is no reason to believe that respondents will comply with the Equal Protection Clause anytime soon.
The dissenting opinions in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard College argue for race-based admissions programs as a remedy for societal discrimination. However, the Supreme Court has consistently rejected this view, as established in previous cases such as Bakke, Hunt, and Croson. The dissents fail to acknowledge this precedent and ignore key rulings. They also misinterpret Grutter and Fisher II, which emphasized the need for reasonable durational limits and temporary deviations from equal treatment in race-based admissions. The dissent's reliance on the critical mass concept is misplaced, as neither Harvard nor UNC claim to use it. The dissent's interpretation of case law is selective and disregards the reservations expressed in Bakke, Grutter, and Fisher regarding racial preferences.
The Equal Protection Clause and the requirement to end race-based admissions programs are disregarded by the dissent. The dissent's view allows the continuation of discriminatory programs. The reliance interests in Grutter are overstated, and many universities do not consider race in admissions. The Harvard and UNC admissions programs violate the Equal Protection Clause. Admissions should be based on individual experiences, not race. The Court's commitment to equality has varied over time. Brown v. Board of Education corrected course, but Grutter pulled back.
The Supreme Court applies strict scrutiny to race-conscious admissions policies at Harvard and UNC, finding them to fail. The Constitution prohibits all forms of discrimination based on race, including affirmative action. The Fourteenth Amendment establishes racial equality and equal citizenship. The Thirteenth Amendment and Civil Rights Act of 1866 aimed to eliminate slavery and ensure equality for all citizens, regardless of race.
The Act overruled Dred Scott v. Sandford and guaranteed equality for blacks. It broadened the provision to include all persons born in the United States. The Thirteenth Amendment provided constitutional authority for the Act's nondiscrimination provisions. Congress' authority to pass the Act was debated, leading to appeals to other sources of constitutional authority. Further submission to the people was required in the form of a proposed constitutional amendment. Proposals for amendments were submitted in Congress, including one that declared equal protection in the rights of life, liberty, and property. The proposed amendment aimed to correct unjust legislation and ensure equal treatment without regard to race. It passed the House and was introduced in the Senate.
The Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment was modeled after the Civil Rights Act of 1866. It aimed to clarify who is a citizen and ensure equality before the law. The Amendment overruled Dred Scott and extended rights to all citizens, regardless of race. Congress passed laws to enforce the Amendment, including the Civil Rights Act of 1875, which aimed to eliminate segregation and treat all races equally. The color-blind view of the Fourteenth Amendment was widely supported by lawmakers.
The Fourteenth Amendment's equality guarantee applied to all races, as evidenced by early Supreme Court opinions. The Court recognized that the Amendment protected all citizens, regardless of race, from discriminatory legislation. However, the Court's view reached its lowest point in Plessy v. Ferguson, which upheld racial distinctions. Despite this, Justice Harlan emphasized that the Constitution was colorblind and rejected laws that protected a dominant race while subjugating others. While some now argue for an "antisubordination" view of the Fourteenth Amendment, the original meaning supports a colorblind interpretation. Statutes like the Freedmen's Bureau Acts, which provided assistance to freedmen (a race-neutral category), are consistent with the colorblind view.
Advocates of the Fourteenth Amendment sought equal rights before the law, not racial subordination. Some federal laws in the 1860s targeted race but aimed to prevent race-based exploitation. These laws may have survived strict scrutiny. Congress also passed the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which prohibited discrimination based on race. The Act specified that states must level up to achieve equal citizenship. Harvard points to state laws that provided race-based benefits, but they don't support the view that the Fourteenth Amendment allowed differential treatment based on race.
The text discusses the need for discrete remedial measures to address government-imposed inequality. It mentions specific laws that targeted blacks and the importance of eradicating discriminatory laws. It emphasizes the demand for color-blind laws and the use of strict scrutiny to reject racial discrimination. The text also highlights three aspects of the Supreme Court's decision: the need for universities to establish a link between racial discrimination and educational benefits, the lack of deference towards those engaged in racial discrimination, and the requirement for closely tailored remedies for past discrimination. It concludes by questioning the compelling interest of universities in promoting racial diversity without a clear link to educational benefits.
The excerpt questions the educational benefits of racial diversity, arguing that seeking a diverse society can be achieved through individuals with diverse perspectives and backgrounds. It challenges the lack of concrete evidence for educational benefits and asserts that alleged benefits of diversity are not exclusive to racial diversity. The excerpt highlights the high bar universities must meet to justify race-conscious admissions programs and emphasizes that racial stereotypes harm individuals. It criticizes deference to universities' assessments of the benefits of race-conscious admissions and compares it to employment discrimination lawsuits. The excerpt discusses the historical discriminatory practices of Harvard and UNC and concludes that courts have a duty to interpret and uphold the Constitution independently.
The Supreme Court has ruled that universities must justify using race in admissions based on concrete evidence. The argument that race can benefit only certain groups is seen as discrimination. The Court recognizes only the educational benefits of diversity as a compelling interest. The Court rejects broad remedial interests and emphasizes the need for a close remedial fit to past discrimination. Without such guardrails, the Fourteenth Amendment would lead to a society steeped in race-based discrimination. Harvard and UNC have not explained how their current racially discriminatory programs are traceable to past discrimination.
The Constitution prohibits racial discrimination and recognizes that race-based classifications have harmful consequences. Universities like Harvard and UNC openly admit to racially discriminating in admissions, defending it as good. Discrimination on the basis of race undermines the principle of equality. The Constitution's colorblind rule is rooted in the idea that all men are created equal. Slavery and inequality persisted, but the United States eventually embraced the promise of equality for all, including immigrants and blacks. The Fourteenth Amendment affirms that equality and racial discrimination cannot coexist. Treating individuals differently based on their race deviates from the principle of equality and is a constitutional violation.
Segregationist views persisted after the Fourteenth Amendment, but Justice Harlan upheld the equality principle. Jim Crow laws were overturned in Brown v. Board of Education. Racial segregation was deemed unconstitutional per se. The Court reaffirms the principle of strict scrutiny and rejects race-based distinctions. History shows that racial discrimination is harmful and arguments for its benefits are pernicious. Segregated universities once argued for race-based discrimination for harmony and equal education. The Court must uphold equality under the law.
Segregationists and defenders of racial discrimination have historically argued that segregation has practical benefits. Affirmative action policies may actually burden the very people they seek to assist. Racial preferences in college admissions can lead to a mismatch between students and institutions, resulting in underperformance for some. Academic advancement requires hard work and preparation, not just a declaration of high grades. Studies suggest that large racial preferences have led to mediocre or poor grades for some minority students in competitive college environments.
Racial preferences in college admissions can lead to mismatching and harm even successful minority students. Affirmative action programs are overinclusive and fail to address academic underperformance and racial stigma. Helping one racial group often comes at the expense of others. Asian Americans, who have faced historical discrimination, have also been affected by race-based admissions policies.
Discrimination against Asian Americans, including segregated schools, should not be remedied at the expense of Asian American college applicants. Affirmative action policies have not improved race relations and have instead prolonged the need for racial discrimination. Universities' racial policies encourage segregation and lead to racial polarization. Racial categories are oversimplistic and do not account for the diverse experiences and viewpoints within each race. These policies are based on stereotypes and reinforce the idea that race determines a person's ideology and abilities.
Policies based on reductionist logic disregard individual ideas and backgrounds, undermining diversity of thought. Racial problems cannot be solved with more racialism; equality before the law is the solution. Justice Jackson's dissent focuses on historical subjugation and racial gaps, advocating for racial means to level the playing field. However, statistical gaps between races are constitutionally irrelevant. Disparities are not solely based on race, and labeling all blacks as victims is unfathomable and irrational. Individuals should be judged by their unique experiences and choices, not their race. Justice Jackson's call to defer to experts and allow racial discrimination empowers privileged elites and siloes people into racial castes. This system defies both law and reason, leading to a never-ending cycle of reorganization. The classifications drawn by Justice Jackson are race-based stereotypes and do not promote true equality.
Justice Jackson argues that race-conscious admission programs are flawed because they judge individuals based on the actions of their ancestors and fail to recognize the diversity within racial groups. The text questions the fairness of prioritizing race over other factors, such as socioeconomic disadvantage. It also highlights the potential negative consequences of race-based preferences, including discrimination against individuals from non-preferred racial groups. The summary notes that universities can achieve racial diversity through race-neutral means, as demonstrated by the University of California and the University of Michigan. The benefits of meritocratic systems are emphasized, with a focus on objective grading scales and historically Black colleges and universities (HBCUs) that have proven successful in educating Black students. The text concludes by questioning the necessity of allowing universities to racially discriminate when HBCUs have already shown that black schools can provide examples of leadership, success, and achievement.
The excerpt discusses the case of Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard College. It mentions the decline of a historically black school, Dunbar, due to efforts towards racial integration. The text also highlights Justice Thomas's views on race-conscious college admissions and the unconstitutionality of such policies. It then introduces Justice Gorsuch's concurring opinion, emphasizing that Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 does not tolerate discrimination based on race. The excerpt explains the key phrases in Title VI and their meanings, concluding that the statute forbids intentional discrimination and actions based on race, color, or national origin.
Title VI prohibits intentional racial discrimination in the treatment of individuals, regardless of any other factors or motivations. Congress chose a simple rule to prevent discrimination based on race, color, or national origin. Title VI and Title VII share the same terms and should be interpreted similarly. Applying Title VI to the Harvard and UNC admissions cases, it is clear that both universities use race in their admissions decisions and treat applicants differently based on race. The classification system used by colleges and universities to collect data on race was created by a federal interagency commission without input from experts and should not be viewed as scientific or determining eligibility for federal programs.
Admissions classifications are based on incoherent stereotypes that lump together diverse groups. Attempts to divide people into categories have become more confusing over time due to increasing multiculturalism. There are disputes over whether individuals belong to certain racial or ethnic groups. Some members of certain groups try to conceal their race or ethnicity due to the perceived disadvantages in college admissions. High school students of Asian descent are advised to downplay their heritage to increase their chances of admission. This disproportionately affects those who cannot afford consultants to navigate the system. Both Harvard and UNC intentionally treat applicants differently based on their race. The Common Application has expanded options for describing backgrounds.
Harvard and UNC use race-based factors in their admissions processes, awarding a "tip" or advantage to certain racial groups. This results in a penalty against other races. Harvard receives 60,000 applications for 1,600 spots and considers race in the overall rating. Committee review also takes race into account. The district court found that race-based tips impact admissions decisions and benefit African American and Hispanic applicants while resulting in fewer Asian American and white students being admitted. UNC also considers race as a "plus" factor for underrepresented minority candidates, excluding Asian and white students. Race plays a role in the decision to admit or deny some URM students at UNC. Both universities have deliberately chosen to employ race-conscious admissions practices.
The racial composition of Harvard's incoming classes has remained steady, with African Americans making up 10-12%, Hispanics 8-12%, and Asian Americans 17-20%. The possibility that this reflects a focus on race rather than demographics is consistent with the findings. Both Harvard and UNC claim to consider race as one factor among many in admissions, but evidence suggests they intentionally consult race to benefit certain groups. Harvard's past practices aimed to limit Jewish students, and its current "holistic" approach may limit Asian American admissions. The schools argue that race-conscious admissions are necessary for diversity, but SFFA questions their definition and measurement of diversity. SFFA also argues that alternatives to race-based admissions exist, such as reducing legacy preferences and increasing financial aid. Evidence suggests Harvard could achieve racial composition without race-based practices.
The dissent in the Supreme Court case acknowledges the arguments made by Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA) and Harvard. However, the dissent goes beyond the facts presented and references studies from a previous case. SFFA proposed changes to Harvard's admissions process that would have little impact on academic credentials but would eliminate preferences for certain applicants. Harvard resisted these proposals and continues to prioritize the children of donors, alumni, and faculty. As a result, recruited athletes and these preferred groups make up a significant portion of admitted applicants. The parties' debates raise questions about the role of race in admissions decisions, but Title VI does not require answers to these questions. Title VI prohibits intentional discrimination based on race, regardless of the universities' motivations or consideration of other factors. The dissent argues against this understanding of Title VI but does not dispute that it aligns with precedent set in Bostock. The lower courts found that Harvard and UNC's admissions policies were not facially neutral, as race-based preferences were given to certain applicants while others were unlikely to receive them.
These cases involve intentional discrimination by Harvard and UNC in their admissions processes. The dissent neglects to mention that Harvard's race-conscious admissions policy actually results in fewer Asian Americans being admitted. Messages among UNC admissions officers reveal discriminatory practices based on race. Title VI prohibits discrimination based on race, and both universities are in violation. The Bakke case established that universities may sometimes permissibly use race in admissions, but the interpretations of the case varied among the Justices. Justice Powell believed some racial preferences might be permissible, but the admissions program at issue violated equal protection.
Justice Stevens argued that Title VI of the Civil Rights Act prohibits racial discrimination in any program receiving federal financial assistance. However, the Supreme Court's interpretation of the Equal Protection Clause in cases like Bakke created confusion and a separate set of rules for racial preferences in higher education. The Court's decision in this case brings an end to university exceptionalism and reaffirms that the Equal Protection Clause requires strict scrutiny for any use of race unless there is a compelling governmental interest. The Court recognizes that Title VI has independent force and provides sufficient guidance on the issue of racial discrimination.
The Equal Protection Clause and Title VI have different scopes, with the former applying to states and the latter also covering private actors. The Equal Protection Clause implies different levels of scrutiny for different classifications, while Title VI targets only race, color, and national origin without specifying a level of scrutiny. The Bakke case relied on legislative history rather than the text of Title VI. Judges should not disregard the plain terms of a valid congressional enactment. The Court corrects its reading of the Equal Protection Clause and argues for a proper respect for Title VI. Title VI is independent of the Equal Protection Clause and does not endorse racial discrimination. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 is a landmark in the journey towards equality. Under Title VI, it is never permissible to discriminate based on race.
The Supreme Court has held that all racial classifications are constitutionally suspect and subject to strict scrutiny. Race-based affirmative action programs must be narrowly tailored and limited in time. In 1978, the Court ruled that race-based affirmative action in higher education was permissible as long as quotas were not used. In 2003, the Court reaffirmed this ruling but indicated that race-based affirmative action would not be justified after another 25 years. The Court recognized the barriers faced by minority applicants but also emphasized the problems of preference and the goal of equal protection. The requirement of a time limit ensures that racial classifications are temporary and in service of equality. This conclusion is consistent with the Court's precedents, which have limited race-based classifications in other contexts.
The Supreme Court has ruled that race-based affirmative action in higher education cannot operate in perpetuity. In 2003, the Court stated that race-based affirmative action could continue for another generation, but rejected any permanent justification for racial preferences. It has been about 50 years since race-based affirmative action programs began in higher education. The Court's decision respects and abides by the temporal limit set forth in the Grutter case. The dissenting justices argue that race-based affirmative action should be able to extend indefinitely, but the Court's precedents make it clear that there is a limit. The Court's decision will apply to the admissions process for the college class of 2028, in accordance with Grutter's 25-year period. The Court's opinion is consistent with equal protection precedents.
The Court's ruling in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard College undermines progress in achieving racial equality in education. The Constitution initially protected slavery and limited educational opportunities for Black people. Emancipation marked the beginning of the Reconstruction era, but discrimination persisted through Black Codes and forced labor. Congress adopted the Fourteenth Amendment to secure civil and political rights for Black Americans. Equal educational opportunity is crucial for achieving racial equality in our democratic society.
The Fourteenth Amendment aimed to secure civil rights for recently emancipated slaves. Congress enacted race-conscious laws, like the Freedmen's Bureau Act, to fulfill the Amendment's promise of equality. The Bureau provided funding for black education and established Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs). It benefited black people, as acknowledged by supporters and opponents. The Act faced opposition for creating racial classifications. President Johnson vetoed the bill, but Congress overrode his veto.
Congress, in passing the Fourteenth Amendment and the Civil Rights Act of 1866, rejected the concept of colorblindness and recognized that white citizens enjoyed certain rights that non-white citizens did not. The Act classified by race and took into account the privileges enjoyed only by white people. Congress overrode President Johnson's veto of the Act. Congress also reenacted race-conscious language in the Civil Rights Act of 1870 and appropriated federal dollars for the benefit of racial minorities. This history supports the constitutionality of race-conscious college admissions. The Reconstruction era, marked by equal opportunity leading to an equal society, was curtailed by the Supreme Court's decisions, culminating in Plessy v. Ferguson, which established "separate but equal" facilities. This led to government-enforced segregation and the destruction of equal opportunity in every sector of society. Justice Harlan's dissent in Plessy argued that segregation perpetuated a "caste" system and was based on the belief that colored citizens were inferior.
Justice Harlan's view that the Constitution is color-blind was later upheld in the Brown decision, which declared separate educational facilities to be inherently unequal. Brown emphasized the importance of education and the harmful effects of racial segregation. The goal of desegregation cases following Brown was to achieve racial equality of opportunity, not race-blindness. Affirmative steps were deemed constitutionally necessary when formal neutrality couldn't achieve racial equality. Arguments against integration based on a color-blind interpretation of Brown were rejected. The Court's current opinion distorts the dissent in Plessy and promotes a color-blindness theory.
The Court's decision in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard College is criticized for recharacterizing the importance of racial diversity in college admissions and ignoring the legacy of Justice Thurgood Marshall. The text highlights that the Supreme Court has previously recognized the constitutionality of limited race-conscious admissions programs in Bakke, Grutter, and Fisher, emphasizing the benefits of diversity in education and society. The dissent argues that the Court's interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment is contrary to precedent and fails to address ongoing racial inequality. It points out that society remains highly segregated, with minority students attending racially homogeneous schools and facing higher levels of poverty and limited resources.
Disparities in school funding and racial segregation persist, with underrepresented minorities facing lower-quality education and fewer opportunities. Achievement gaps exist even when controlling for income differences. Students of color are disproportionately disciplined, less likely to have parents with a postsecondary education, and have limited access to early childhood education programs. These systemic inequities hinder underrepresented minorities' chances in the college admissions process. In North Carolina, racial inequality in K-12 education is deeply rooted, with courts finding unequal access to educational opportunities for underrepresented racial minorities. These opportunity gaps result in fewer underrepresented students applying to elite universities.
Latino and Black students face structural barriers in accessing higher education, perpetuating racial inequality. Racial disparities exist in unemployment rates, income levels, wealth, homeownership, and healthcare access. UNC and Harvard have histories of racial exclusion. UNC was a bastion of white supremacy, excluding people of color and resisting integration.
UNC and Harvard have a history of racial discrimination and inequality, with UNC still experiencing racial harassment and having a predominantly white student body. Harvard had financial ties to slavery and promoted racist ideologies. Both universities have made efforts to address their past and promote diversity, but the Supreme Court's decision hinders these efforts and perpetuates racial inequality in higher education.
The dissent argues that the Court is disregarding precedent and changing the rules to reach its desired outcome. Harvard and UNC's admissions programs are constitutional and comply with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act. The Court declines to address Justice Gorsuch's argument about Title VI, as it was not presented by any party. The dissent explains that the Court's role is to be a neutral arbiter and address the arguments presented by the parties. The cases arrived at the Court after lengthy trials, with Harvard and UNC providing extensive evidence in support of their admissions programs. The District Courts entered judgment in favor of Harvard and UNC, which was affirmed by the First Circuit. The Court granted certiorari on three questions, including whether to overrule Bakke and Grutter. SFFA is a nonprofit organization founded after the Fisher I decision.
The case involves Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA) challenging Harvard's and UNC's race-based admissions policies. SFFA argues that race-neutral alternatives exist and that the policies are not narrowly tailored. The District Court found that SFFA's proposed alternatives were flawed and unrealistic. Both Harvard and UNC's policies were deemed narrowly tailored by the lower courts.
The First Circuit found no errors in the District Court's findings regarding Harvard's admissions process. Harvard has implemented proposals to increase recruitment efforts and financial aid for low-income students. Harvard considered race-neutral alternatives but found them to be unworkable. SFFA argues that Harvard should adopt their plan, which eliminates the use of race and legacy preferences. UNC also engages in race-neutral efforts focused on socioeconomic status. SFFA's arguments were not credited by the court below. SFFA's claim that Harvard discriminates against Asian American students was rejected. Under SFFA's model, Black representation would decrease and the academic ratings of admitted applicants would decrease. SFFA's proposal would require Harvard to make sacrifices on various dimensions important to its admissions process. The courts below properly rejected SFFA's argument that Harvard does not use race in a contextual and limited way. Harvard's admissions process is highly competitive and involves multiple components. Admissions officers may consider a student's self-reported racial identity but it is not required. Harvard considers various factors, including race, to diversify its class. Harvard rejects a significant number of Hispanic and African-American applicants who are academically promising. The courts rejected SFFA's claim that Harvard's use of race is unconstitutional and impacts Hispanic and Black student representation. There is no evidence to support the claim that only certain races may receive a tip in their favor.
Eliminating race in admissions at Harvard would decrease African American and Hispanic representation, but the impact is less than previous cases. The use of race at UNC has a smaller effect and is consistent with court precedents. Harvard does not use racial quotas and its admissions classes vary across racial groups. The court's conclusion that Harvard engages in racial balancing is unsupported. The chart used by the majority is misleading and ignores the broader context of the data, which show that admissions have increased for all racial minorities at Harvard. The data also demonstrate that Harvard does not use quotas or engage in racial balancing.
The majority's selected data is incomplete and fails to consider broader context. The Court claims Harvard's policies are unconstitutional due to imprecise objectives and racial stereotypes. The Court overrules its own precedents and ignores basic statistical principles. The Court's inference that racial preferences are responsible for demographic composition is flawed. The Court's disregard for precedent damages representation and institutional legitimacy. There is no justification for overruling previous cases. Limited use of race in college admissions is constitutional and consistent with equal protection jurisprudence. The Court has upheld the use of race in various contexts.
The Court has allowed the use of race when it benefits minority populations, but today's decision contradicts that precedent. The Court previously held that border patrol agents could use a person's skin color as a factor for reasonable suspicion. The decision in this case prevents skin color from being considered in assessing an individual's contributions to a diverse learning environment. The Court acknowledges that some uses of race are permissible, exempting military academies from its ruling. The Court's exemption based on national security interests is arbitrary and inconsistent. The concurring opinions also agree that the Constitution permits some racial classifications. Justice Thomas argues that the Constitution is not colorblind and allows for a wider range of race-conscious measures. The Court's decision goes against decades of precedent and undermines the value of diversity in higher education. The Court's requirement for measurability is not supported by previous rulings.
The Court recognized the substantial and well-documented interest in diversity, which provides valuable educational benefits. However, the majority's ruling devalues racial integration in higher education. The Court's precedents allowing the limited use of race in college admissions have been effective and should be maintained. Harvard and UNC's holistic review policies consider race as just one factor among many, allowing for a diverse class on multiple dimensions. Racial groups that are not underrepresented tend to benefit disproportionately from this system. The Court's claim that the use of race disadvantages certain groups is unfounded and ignores the larger admissions puzzle where most pieces disadvantage underrepresented racial minorities.
The majority's objection is that using race in college admissions achieves equal opportunity and increases underrepresented racial minorities, but the Court finds this unfair to non-underrepresented groups. The Court's conclusion is that increasing racial minority representation in historically white institutions is unfair and offensive. The Court's approach burdens racial minorities and denies them the full expression of their identity. The Court's decision will disproportionately affect minority students. The Court suggests that universities can consider race in application essays, but this is seen as an attempt to save face. The Court's demand for discussion of racial self-identification tied to individual qualities perpetuates a false narrative. The Court imposes its preferred college application format without recognizing the unique perspectives and experiences of students based on racial identity.
The dissenting opinion argues that race-conscious admissions policies are necessary to combat the burdens imposed on students of color. Racial diversity on campus reduces stereotypes and allows for a variety of viewpoints. The Court's decision leaves room for colleges to consider socioeconomic and other factors in admissions. A focus on academic metrics alone would undermine diversity. The Court's requirement for precision in race-conscious plans makes them unworkable. The decision is likely to lead to more litigation and harm all students. The dissent criticizes the Court's characterization of racial categories as imprecise and arbitrary, noting their use in federal data collection.
Harvard and UNC allow students to provide additional information through subcategories or personal statements. The Court suggests that Harvard and UNC's race-conscious programs are unconstitutional because they lack a specific expiration date, but this requirement is not grounded in law. Grutter did not impose a fixed expiration date, but rather tasked universities with periodically assessing the necessity of race-conscious programs. The Court's holding is based on the fiction that racial inequality has a predictable end, which is illogical and unworkable. Harvard and UNC engage in ongoing reviews of their admissions programs, as required by precedent, but the Court deems their attention to numbers unconstitutional racial balancing. However, some attention to numbers is necessary and permissible. Justice Kavanaugh's reading is puzzling.
Justice Kavanaugh suggests that affirmative action has an expiration date, but his arguments are beside the point and trivialize the Court's precedent. Justice Thomas's arguments against race-conscious admissions policies lack merit and have been debunked. Affinity-based activities and race-conscious admissions policies benefit racial minorities and do not cause harm. There is no evidence to support the claim that race-conscious admissions discriminate against Asian American students.
The trial for Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA) discrimination claim was lost, with no legal or factual errors found. SFFA's claim does not fall under the strict scrutiny framework, as the personal rating component of Harvard's admissions policy is race-neutral. The courts below found no discrimination against Asian Americans after assessing witnesses and evidence. The use of race in admissions is important for achieving racially diverse classes and breaking down stereotypes. Race-conscious holistic admissions benefit Asian American applicants and allow consideration of the vast differences within the community. Asian American enrollment rates have increased at institutions with race-conscious admissions policies. Race-conscious admissions benefit all students, including racial minorities. The Court's decision does not acknowledge the reliance interests of universities with race-conscious policies and the settled expectations of students. The use of race in college admissions has increased the enrollment of underrepresented minorities and should not be abandoned based on its effectiveness.
Today's decision to end race-conscious college admissions will harm underrepresented minority students and undo progress in achieving diversity. The elimination of race as a factor in admissions has led to significant drops in enrollment for minority groups in California universities. The decline in diversity has persisted, with Black and Latino student representation remaining low. The absence of race-conscious admissions will negatively impact the pipeline of racially diverse college graduates in crucial professions, including the military and public services. Racial diversity is essential for national security and improving healthcare access, outcomes, and educational achievement. It also benefits industries such as business, research, media, and technology. Ending race-conscious admissions further entrenches racial inequality by limiting diverse pipelines to leadership roles. A college degree from an elite institution provides powerful networks and opportunities for socioeconomic mobility.
The Court's decision in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard College ignores the harmful consequences of a lack of diversity in leadership positions and exacerbates racial disparities. The ruling closes the door of opportunity for students of all races and creates a less diverse pipeline to top jobs. The decision promotes indifference to inequality and diminishes the inclusivity of our institutions. True equality of educational opportunity is essential, and institutions should be able to consider race in admissions to remedy racial exclusion. Despite the Court's actions, progress toward equality will continue. Gulf-sized race-based gaps persist in health, wealth, and well-being, and it is crucial to address them. The Court's ruling overlooks the benefits of considering race in college admissions and is unfair to applicants.
Our country has never been colorblind; state-sponsored race-based preferences have created intergenerational inequality. The majority's judgment against UNC's admissions program is baseless. History shows the impact of slavery and the need for equality. Reconstruction Amendments aimed to right historical wrongs but were met with resistance. The Court facilitated discrimination, as seen in Plessy v. Ferguson and the Civil Rights Cases.
Justice Harlan dissented alone in the case, recognizing the need to secure and protect rights for Black people as freemen and citizens. The law and private parties created obstacles to hinder the progress and prosperity of Black people, such as sharecropping and vagrancy laws. Racially exclusionary zoning and discriminatory lending practices prevented Black migrants from accessing affordable housing and homeownership. Federal and state government interventions further exacerbated disparities, such as the Home Owners' Loan Corporation (HOLC) and the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) denying loans and insurance to Black Americans.
Race-based gaps in wealth and income persist, with Black families having significantly less wealth and lower incomes compared to White families. These disparities exist at all income and education levels. The wealth gap has increased over time, with White families having approximately eight times more wealth than Black families. Median income numbers also reflect these disparities. These gaps can be traced back to historical government policies that excluded Black people from opportunities for wealth accumulation and favored White individuals. The effects of these policies are still present today and can be seen in various aspects of society, including the distribution of benefits, tax system treatment, location of toxic-waste facilities, and design of highways that segregate Black communities. These race-based gaps are not due to a lack of desire or ability on the part of Black Americans, but rather the persistent denial of opportunities that have been afforded to the white race. The COVID-19 pandemic has further exacerbated these disparities.
Disparities between Black and White Americans persist in areas such as home ownership, college enrollment, student debt, professional fields, small business ownership, health outcomes, and mortality rates. These disparities are the result of historical and ongoing opportunity disparities that have led to significant negative impacts on the Black community. These include higher rates of obesity, hypertension, maternal mortality, infant mortality, stroke, asthma, and various diseases. These disparities contribute to approximately 50,000 excess deaths per year for Black Americans compared to White Americans. Additionally, Black Americans face higher medical costs and medical debt. Historical factors such as slavery, Jim Crow laws, and systemic racism have played a significant role in creating and perpetuating these disparities.
UNC's admissions process considers race as one of many factors in a holistic review. Applicants are not required to disclose demographic information. The review process evaluates applicants based on 40 criteria, including academic performance, extracurricular activities, and unique interests. Race is considered in the context of diversity, but there are no race-based quotas or automatic advantages. Eligibility for a race-linked plus is available to all students who choose to disclose their race. UNC also considers other forms of diversity, such as socioeconomic status and political beliefs. The admissions process aims to assess the entire unique import of each applicant's life and background.
UNC's holistic admissions process considers race as one aspect among many that contribute to an applicant's identity and potential for success. The program aims to evaluate the full person, including their race-linked experiences, to determine their capacity and merit. It does not guarantee race-based advantages or disadvantages. The elimination of race-linked preferences would still require applicants to compete against each other based on their individual qualities. UNC's holistic approach ensures a personalized assessment of advantages and disadvantages, resilience, and potential contributions to the campus and society. It does not guarantee that any particular applicant of color will be admitted over a nonminority applicant. Ignoring the initial race-linked opportunity gap between applicants would widen the gap rather than narrow it. Admissions programs that consider race are justified by the race-linked gaps in health, wealth, and well-being that still exist in society. The goal is to close these gaps and create equal opportunities for all Americans. The failure to recognize this in today's judgment is a perversion. The ultimate goal is to give students the tools to compete without race mattering in the future, contributing to a more equitable society.
Holistic admissions programs, like UNC's, promote racial diversity on campus, leading to improved learning outcomes and reduced prejudice. The presence of Black physicians positively impacts healthcare for marginalized communities. Programs that address wealth disparities, like UNC's, can help close health disparities in the long run. Diverse student bodies benefit everyone by fostering an appreciation for civic virtue and democratic values. Ensuring diversity in higher education can save billions of dollars annually and contribute to societal progress. The majority's colorblind approach ignores the continued impact of race in American society. To achieve true equality, racial disparities must be confronted and addressed. The majority's ruling hinders progress towards a colorblind world.
The Court's decision to mandate race-blind admissions disregards the importance of addressing social and government-imposed racism. UNC's holistic review program is constitutional and necessary to create a more functional multiracial democracy. The decision ignores the historical context of race discrimination and perpetuates intergenerational gaps in health, wealth, and well-being. The Court's meddling impedes universities' efforts to promote diversity and launches a misinformed sociological experiment. Holistic admissions programs that consider race are warranted, just, and beneficial for solving race-based inequities. The Court's conclusion regarding racial diversity in higher education is counterproductive and goes against the Equal Protection Clause. The decision obstructs progress and is a tragedy for all.