Supreme Court Eliminates Affirmative Action in College Admissions

In a 6-3 decision (with a conservative majority) the recent Supreme Court ruling in Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College ended affirmative action in college admissions. Funded by Edward Blum, a conservative advocate, with a history of challenging affirmative action policies, Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA), argued that affirmative action policies unfairly disadvantaged Asian American applicants in college admissions.

The case was the culmination of challenges to both the Harvard and University of North Carolina’s admissions policies. SFFA alleged that Harvard’s admissions policies favored Black and Hispanic applicants over Asian Americans with similar qualifications. This lawsuit challenged the legality of considering race as a factor in college admissions, asserting that it violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

What is affirmative action? Broadly speaking, it refers to policies and practices designed to increase opportunities for historically underrepresented groups. While Affirmative Action is often thought by many as a Black and white issue, the fact is that Affirmative Action has benefited minority students across the board. The 2020-2021 admissions data for Harvard and the University of North Carolina show that the admissions for Asian students exceeded 20% while admissions for Black, Hispanic and American Indian students averaged 9%, 12% and 1% respectively. Asian students however are the only group whose admissions rates outpaces their 6% population representation according to the 2022 U.S. Census.

Since its inclusion in Executive Orders 10925 and 11246 by Presidents John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson, and even after being affirmed in the landmark Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, Affirmative Action has long been a divisive topic in the US. Nowhere has that division been more evident than in opinions issued by the two Black Supreme Court Justices, Clarence Thomas and Ketanji Borwn-Jackson.

In his concurring opinion, conservative Justice Clarence Thomas expressed his disagreement with affirmative action and argued for its abolishment altogether. He wrote, “The Constitution abhors classifications based on race because every time the government places citizens on racial registers and makes race relevant to the provision of burdens or benefits, it demeans us all.”

In her dissenting opinion, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson emphasized the importance of affirmative action in rectifying historical injustices. She argued that considering race as one factor among many in admissions decisions is a legitimate tool to promote diversity and inclusion. Justice Jackson stated, “Acknowledging our nation’s history of racial inequities, Harvard’s use of raceconscious admissions policies to foster diversity is both constitutionally permissible and beneficial.”

In striking down the Harvard and UNC admissions policies which the Court referred to them as “elusive,” “opaque” and “imponderable,” the Court allowed for a more individualized approach to the use of race by permitting colleges and universities to consider how an applicant’s race has affected their life as long as it is “concretely tied” to a “quality of character or unique ability” that the applicant can bring to the school.

So, what does this mean going forward. The depends on who you ask. Some, like Jennifer Lee, a sociology professor at Columbia University, worries that the ruling might embolden opponents of affirmative action, leading to a further erosion of opportunities for marginalized communities. Lee states, “This ruling sends a signal that will likely embolden more challenges to affirmative action programs, potentially shrinking access to higher education for minority students.”

Others like Harvard College’s spokesperson, Sarah Donahue chose to focus on the Courts acceptance of diversity, stating “This decision recognizes the value of diversity and reaffirms our commitment to expanding