The Harvard Crimson

THE HARVARD CRIMSON THE UNIVERSITY DAILY, EST. 1873

| VOLUME CL, NO. 16

RALLY

LEGACY

Protesters Rally in Washington After Court Decision

Supreme Court, Biden Take Aim at Legacy Admissions

PAGE 11

| CAMBRIDGE, MASSACHUSETTS

PAGE 10

FRIDAY, JUNE 30, 2023

EXTRA

JULIAN J. GIORDANO—CRIMSON PHOTOGRAPHER, SAMI E. TURNER—CRIMSON DESIGNER

Supreme Court Rules to Strike Down Affirmative Action BY MICHELLE N. AMPONSAH AND EMMA H. HAIDAR CRIMSON STAFF WRITERS

The Supreme Court severely curtailed affirmative action in higher education admissions, declaring Harvard’s race-conscious admissions policy unconstitutional in a ruling against the school Thursday. The 6-2 decision — widely expected by legal scholars due to the Court’s strong conservative majority — marks a major setback for Harvard, which has faced scrutiny for its admissions practices since anti-affirmative action group Students for Fair Admissions first filed suit in 2014. The SFFA suit alleged the College’s admissions processes discriminate against Asian Americans in violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which bans institutions that receive federal

funds from discriminating “on the grounds of race, color, or national origin.” The Supreme Court also ruled against the University of North Carolina and its admissions policies in an 6-3 decision. Justices heard the suits, both brought by SFFA, on the same day last October. In the majority opinion authored by Chief Justice John Roberts ’76, the Court ruled that Harvard’s and UNC’s admission policies violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment and ruled that the highest standard of judicial review — strict scrutiny — must be applied. “University programs must comply with strict scrutiny, they may never use race as a stereotype or negative, and — at some point — they must end,” the opinion states. “Respondents’ admissions systems — however well intentioned and implemented in good faith — fail each of these

Here’s What the Supreme Court Said About Affirmative Action

criteria.” The court held, however, that universities may still consider how an applicant’s race has shaped their personal identity. “At the same time, as all parties agree, nothing in this opinion should be construed as prohibiting universities from considering an applicant’s discussion of how race affected his or her life, be it through discrimination, inspiration, or otherwise,” the majority opinion states. In a dissenting opinion, Justice Sonia M. Sotomayor stated that the Court’s ruling “rolls back decades of precedent.” “The Court subverts the constitutional guarantee of equal protection by further entrenching racial inequality in education, the very foundation of our democratic government and pluralistic society,” she added.

SEE PAGE 3

BY RAHEM D. HAMID AND NEIL S. SHAH CRIMSON STAFF WRITERS

The Supreme Court ruled against Harvard and the University of North Carolina in a landmark decision Thursday morning, radically restricting the consideration of race in college admissions. In a 40-page opinion authored by Chief Justice John Roberts ’76, all six members of the Court’s conservative wing ruled that Harvard’s and UNC’s admissions programs violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment states that all U.S. citizens must receive “equal protection of the laws” and that their “privileges or immunities” cannot be curtailed without due process of law. Students for Fair Admissions,

the group that first sued Harvard in 2014, had filed a separate lawsuit against UNC — but the Supreme Court issued one ruling for both cases. Associate Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson ’92 did not participate in any part of the Harvard case, having recused herself due to her former position on the Board of Overseers, the University’s second-highest governing body. She authored a dissent in the UNC case. Students for Fair Admissions — the anti-affirmative action group that sued Harvard and UNC in 2014 — had asked the Supreme Court to overturn Grutter v. Bollinger, its landmark 2003 decision that preserved race-conscious admissions. But the Supreme Court did not go that far. Instead, the Court ruled that Harvard’s and UNC’s admissions policies did not satisfy “strict

scrutiny” — the most stringent standard of judicial review that all exceptions to the Equal Protection Clause must pass. Roberts wrote that while the stated goals of Harvard’s and UNC’s admissions policies are “commendable” including exposing students to diverse outlooks and “training future leaders,” these are “not sufficiently coherent for purposes of strict scrutiny.” Per Richard H. Sander ’78 — a law professor at the University of California, Los Angeles — the “thrust of the decision” was not to say that “earlier courts were wrong” but that “earlier courts tried to give universities assurance and universities were abusing the system so we’re just going to stop it.” “I was surprised that they didn’t explicitly overrule Grutter — for example — but after reading

SEE PAGE 4

EXPLAINER

OP-ED

REACTIONS

Here’s What You Need to Know

The Court Killed Campus Diversity. What Now?

Harvard Faculty Dismayed With Court Ruling

PAGE 3. We break down the basics of the lawsuit

PAGE 6. The admissions landscape is now stacked against students of color. The Supreme Court has sent a clear message: College is for the privileged.

PAGE 8. Several Harvard faculty members said they were disappointed — though not surprised — in the hours following the Supreme Court’s decision.

brought by Students for Fair Admissions against Harvard’s affirmative action policies.

THE HARVARD CRIMSON

NEWS

JUNE 30, 2023

The Case in Headlines APRIL 24, 2014

NOV. 18, 2014

‘Harvard Not Fair’ Seeks Rejected Applicants for Lawsuit

Suit Alleges Race-Based Discrimination in Admissions

SEARCHING FOR PLAINTIFFS. Project on Fair Representation launched a site seeking students who claim they were not admitted to Harvard College because of their race.

SUIT FILED. Project on Fair Representation announced a lawsuit against Harvard for “employing racially and ethnically discriminatory policies” in its admissions practices.

SEPT. 3, 2015

JUNE 16, 2018

Faust Pledges ‘Vigorous Defense’ Against Admissions Lawsuit

SFFA Alleges ‘Discrimination’ Based on Personal Scores

REAFFIRMING. University President Drew G. Faust upheld Harvard’s commitment to diversity and pledged a “vigorous defense of our procedures.”

LOWER PERSONAL RATINGS. Students for Fair Admissions accused Harvard of assigning discriminatory “personal” ratings to Asian-American applicants.

OCT. 1, 2018

OCT. 2, 2019

Judge Rules Harvard Admissions Suit Must Proceed to Trial

Federal Judge Rules Admissions Policies Do Not Discriminate

GOING TO TRIAL. U.S. District Court Judge Allison D. Burroughs ruled that the admissions lawsuit alleging Harvard discriminates against Asian-American applicants will go to trial in October.

RULING MADE. Harvard College’s race-conscious admissions policies do not illegally discriminate against Asian American applicants, federal judge Allison D. Burroughs ruled.

NOV. 12, 2020

FEB. 25, 2021

First Circuit Rules Admissions Process Does Not Violate Title VI

SFFA Petitions SCOTUS to Take Up Suit Against Harvard

APPEAL DECISION. First Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the University’s race-conscious admissions processes do not violate civil rights law.

PETITION FILED. Students for Fair Admissions petitioned the United States Supreme Court to review a lower court’s decision upholding Harvard’s race-conscious admissions.

JAN. 24, 2022

NOV. 1, 2022

Supreme Court to Take Up Supreme Court Appears Ready Challenges to Affirmative Action to Ban Affirmative Action GOING TO SCOTUS. The Supreme Court agreed to take up a pair of lawsuits challenging race-conscious admissions policies at Harvard and the University of North Carolina.

ON ITS LAST LEG. The Supreme Court’s conservative majority appeared open to banning the consideration of race in college admissions during oral arguments.

Stay Up to Date with our Newsletter Right in Your Inbox.

THE HARVARD CRIMSON Cara J. Chang ’24 President

STAFF FOR THIS ISSUE Brandon L. Kingdollar ’24

Cynthia V. Lu ’24

Managing Editor

Business Manager

Magazine Chairs Io Y. Gilman ’25 Amber H. Levis ’25

Design Chairs Sophia Salamanca ’25 Sami E. Turner ’25

Eleanor V. Wikstrom ’24 Christina M. Xiao ’24

Blog Chairs Tina Chen ’24 Hana Rehman ’25

Multimedia Chairs Joey Huang ’24 Julian J. Giordano ’25

Arts Chairs Anya L. Henry ’24 Alisa S. Regassa ’24

Sports Chairs Mairead B. Baker ’24 Aaron B. Schuchman ’25

Technology Chairs Kevin Luo ’24 Justin Y. Ye ’24

Associate Managing Editors Leah J. Teichholtz ’24 Meimei Xu ’24 Editorial Chairs

Night Editors Cara J. Chang ’24 Sarah Girma ’24 Ariel H. Kim ’24 Brandon L. Kingdollar ’24 Vivi E. Lu ’24 Mayesha R. Soshi ’24 Leah J. Teichholtz ’24 Andy Z. Wang ’23-’24 Meimei Xu ’24 Eric Yan ’24 Assistant Night Editor Sami E. Turner ’25 Claire Yuan ’25

Associate Business Manager Derek S. Chang ’24 Copyright 2023, The Harvard Crimson (USPS 236-560). No articles, editorials, cartoons or any part thereof appearing in The Crimson may be reproduced in any form without the express written permission of the President. The Associated Press holds the right to reprint any materials published in The Crimson. The Crimson is a non-profit, independent corporation, founded in 1873 and incorporated in 1967. Second-class postage paid in Boston, Massachusetts. Published Monday through Friday except holidays and during vacations, three times weekly during reading and exam periods by The Harvard Crimson Inc., 14 Plympton St., Cambridge, Mass. 02138

Story Editors Cara J. Chang ’24 Brandon L. Kingdollar ’24 Vivi E. Lu ’24 Mayesha R. Soshi ’24 Meimei Xu ’24 Andy Z. Wang ’23-’24 Eric Yan ’24

Editorial Editors Cara J. Chang ’24

Eleanor V. Wikstrom ’24 Christina M. Xiao ’24

Design Editors Laurinne Eugenio ’26

Emily N. Dial ’25

Sami E. Turner ’25 Photo Editor Julian J. Giordano ’25

CORRECTIONS The Harvard Crimson is committed to accuracy in its reporting. Factual errors are corrected promptly on this page. Readers with information about errors are asked to e-mail the managing editor at managingeditor@thecrimson.com.

NEWS

THE HARVARD CRIMSON JUNE 30, 2023

Nov. 17, 2014

May 17, 2021

Students for Fair Admissions — a nonprofit anti-affirmative action group led by conservative legal activist Edward J. Blum — filed lawsuits against both Harvard University and the University of North Carolina. The suits alleged that the universities’ admissions practices were discriminatory and unconstitutional, violating the 14th Amendment and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Instead, SFFA argued, race-neutral admissions policies could achieve similar levels of diversity.

Harvard University filed an opposition brief urging the Supreme Court to reject the petition from Students for Fair Admissions that sought to have the Court take up the case and review a lower court’s decision to uphold Harvard’s admissions practices. Harvard’s attorneys argued in the brief that SFFA did not provide evidence to support its legal claims and did not establish unsettled legal issues that required review.

Jan. 24, 2022

Oct. 16, 2018 The trial began in the Massachusetts District Court. Lawyers for both Harvard and Students for Fair Admissions offered lengthy opening statements, with the University defending itself from claims of discrimination against Asian American applicants. William F. Lee ’72 — the senior fellow of the Harvard Corporation, the University’s highest governing body — served as the University’s lead trial lawyer. He pointed to Supreme Court precedent that indicates the College admissions process is legally sound.

Oct. 1, 2019 Federal judge Allison D. Burroughs ruled that Harvard College’s raceconscious admissions practices did not illegally discriminate against Asian American applicants. Though SFFA alleged the admissions policies discriminated against Asian American applicants by requiring them to achieve a higher standard, Burroughs found the policies to be legal. In her decision, Burroughs noted that ensuring diversity at Harvard requires the use of race-conscious admissions.

Nov. 12, 2020 Two judges for the First Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Students for Fair Admissions had standing to sue Harvard but that the University’s race-conscious admissions practices did not violate civil rights law. Judges Jeffrey R. Howard and Sandra L. Lynch wrote that Harvard did not engage in racial balancing and had considered raceneutral alternatives. The University welcomed the ruling.

EXPLAINER

Here’s What You Need to Know: Affirmative Action Students flocked to Washington to rally against the Supreme Court’s Thursday ruling. JULIAN J. GIORDANO—CRIMSON PHOTOGRAPHER

YOUR QUESTIONS ANSWERED. We break down the basics of the lawsuit against affirmative action. BY MICHELLE N. AMPONSAH AND EMMA H. HAIDAR CRIMSON STAFF WRITERS

What is affirmative action? Race-conscious admissions policies allow institutions of higher education to use race as one factor to create a diverse student body. Harvard College’s admissions process uses “holistic review” to evaluate applicants — factors like academic achievement, athletics, legacy status, and race are all taken into account. In the past three years, the College has admitted less than 4 percent of applicants. According to the College’s Office of Admissions and Financial Aid, “academic accomplishment in high school is important, but the Admissions Committee also considers many other criteria, such as community involvement, leadership and distinction in extracurricular activities, and personal qualities and character.” How has the Supreme Court ruled on affirmative action before? The Supreme Court has taken up several major cases about affirmative action: University of Cal-

ifornia v. Bakke in 1978, Gratz v. Bollinger and Grutter v. Bollinger in 2003, and Fisher v. University of Texas in 2013 and 2016. Across the cases, the Supreme Court has ruled that racial quotas in admissions are unconstitutional, but the use of race as one factor in admissions is permissible since schools have a “compelling interest” in maintaining a diverse student body for educational benefits. Further, any consideration of race must be “narrowly tailored” to individuals, and universities may only turn to “racial classifications” if “workable race-neutral alternatives do not suffice.” Harvard has been featured in the affirmative action debate for decades. In a concurring opinion in the 1978 Bakke case, Justice Lewis F. Powell Jr. pointed to Harvard’s admissions process as an “illuminating example” and a model for universities across the country. What is Students for Fair Admissions? Students for Fair Admissions was founded by Edward J. Blum, a conservative activist who has been pushing for an end to race-conscious admissions through litigation for nearly three decades. Blum is also president of SFFA. Blum is no stranger to the Supreme Court. Through the Project on Fair Representation, a nonprofit that supports litigation challenging racial and eth-

nic preferences that he founded nearly a decade before SFFA, Blum led efforts to finance the Fisher cases. While the Supreme Court ultimately upheld affirmative action in both cases, Blum and his supporters came one vote short of overturning the precedent in 2016. Blum also helped sponsor the litigation behind the landmark 2013 Supreme Court case Shelby County v. Holder, which gutted a key provision of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 that required states with histories of racial discrimination to attain federal approval before changing their election laws. Blum established SFFA in 2014 as an offshoot of the Project on Fair Representation. Why was Harvard sued? SFFA alleges that Harvard’s race-conscious admissions policies discriminate against Asian American applicants and that the University’s admissions process violates Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The group argues that Harvard consistently rates Asian American students lower on factors like “likability,” “courage,” and “kindness.” Court filings also showed that the University conducted an internal review of its admissions policies in 2013, revealing a bias against Asian American applicants on the “personality” metric, according to the New York Times.

Harvard categorically denies all allegations of racial discrimination. How did we get here? SFFA first sued Harvard in November 2014. In 2019, Massachusetts District Court Judge Allison D. Burroughs ruled in Harvard’s favor, finding that the College’s admissions policy did not discriminate against Asian American applicants. “Harvard’s admissions program is narrowly tailored to achieve a diverse class and the benefits that flow therefrom,” Burroughs wrote. SFFA immediately appealed the decision to the First Circuit Court of Appeals, which also upheld Harvard’s race-conscious admissions policy in 2020. In 2021, SFFA petitioned the Supreme Court to review the case. On Jan. 24, 2022, the court accepted the petition and consolidated the Harvard and UNC cases. The Supreme Court separated the cases on July 22, 2022, however, to allow newly seated Associate Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson ’92 to weigh in on the UNC case. Jackson had recused herself from the Harvard case due to her previous role on the Board of Overseers, the University’s second-highest governing body. The court heard oral arguments in both cases on Oct. 31, 2022. michelle.amponsah@thecrimson.com emma.haidar@thecrimson.com

Feb. 25, 2021 Students for Fair Admissions petitioned the Supreme Court to review a lower court’s decision upholding Harvard’s raceconscious admission practices. Edward J. Blum, the president of SFFA, filed a petition for a writ of certiorari in hopes that the Court will take up the lawsuit and rule against Harvard and its admissions practices. In order for the Court to take up the case, four justices must have agreed to SFFA’s petition.

RULING FROM PAGE 1

Affirmative Action Struck Down Harvard has long denied that its race-conscious admissions program discriminates against Asian Americans, who consistently rated lower than other groups in personal ratings, according to data filed in federal court in Boston. In response to the decision, the University released a statement signed by top University administrators, including President Lawrence S. Bacow and President-elect Claudine Gay. “In the weeks and months

ahead, drawing on the talent and expertise of our Harvard community, we will determine how to preserve, consistent with the Court’s new precedent, our essential values,” it states. The ruling overturns two lower court rulings in Harvard’s favor. The Massachusetts District Court ruled in support of Harvard in 2019, a decision upheld by a federal appeals court in 2020. In early 2021, SFFA petitioned the Supreme Court to hear the case, and the Court

agreed to hear the case a year later. The Supreme Court’s decision is a victory decades in the making for SFFA President Edward J. Blum, who has orchestrated more than two dozen lawsuits challenging racial preference laws. The Court first ruled in favor of race-conscious admissions in Regents of the University of California v. Bakke in 1978. Until Thursday’s ruling, the Court had narrowly upheld affirmative ac-

tion through challenges in 2003, 2013, and 2016. The Harvard and UNC rulings have far-reaching implications for universities across the country, whose current admissions policies will likely need to be adjusted. We’ll be breaking down what this ruling means for the admissions process, students, and higher education. michelle.amponsah@thecrimson.com emma.haidar@thecrimson.com

The Supreme Court agreed to take on both lawsuits challenging race-conscious admissions policies. The Court also decided it would hear and consider the two suits together. It was the first major affirmative action case to come before the Court, which had recently expanded into a 6-3 conservative majority. Students for Fair Admissions asked the Supreme Court to overturn precedent, set in 2003 in Grutter v. Bollinger.

July 22, 2022 Newly seated Associate Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson ’92 recused herself from the case against Harvard as a result of her prior tenure on the Board of Overseers, the University’s secondhighest governing body. The Supreme Court then decided, in a procedural change, to separate the University of North Carolina and Harvard University hearings in order to allow Jackson to weigh in on the former case.

Oct. 31, 2022 After more than five hours across the two cases, the Supreme Court concluded hearing oral arguments. The Court’s conservative majority questioned the Harvard and University of North Carolina lawyers, signaling skepticism towards the universities’ raceconscious admissions practices. Outside of the courthouse, both proand anti-affirmative action activists protested with signs and chants. Several senior members of the Harvard administration attended the hearing.

Jun. 29, 2023 The Supreme Court decision was released. Presented by Chief Justice John Roberts, the majority opinion severely curtailed affirmative action in higher education admissions. The 6-2 decision also declared Harvard’s race-conscious admissions practices unconstitutional, a marked setback for the University. The Court also voted 6-3 against the University of North Carolina and its admissions practices. Both universities affirmed their commitment to diversity but announced they would abide by the Supreme Court’s ruling.

THE HARVARD CRIMSON

NEWS

JUNE 30, 2023

OPINION FROM PAGE 1

Breakdown: The Supreme Court Opinion it, I thought it was a smart choice on their part,” Sander said, calling the opinion “very well crafted.” Richard T. Ford, a professor at Stanford Law School, said he found it “interesting” that the Supreme Court “seemed to want to avoid acknowledging” whether or not Grutter had been overruled, making it appear — from Ford’s perspective — “that they wanted to make this look less radical than it really is.” “Justice Roberts — and then also when one looks at Justice Kavanaugh’s concurrence — went to great pains to claim that they weren’t overruling their past precedents and instead were just applying them,” Ford said. “Now, that’s quite odd because — of course — the past precedents allowed for the use of race in affirmative action and this opinion appears to foreclose the use of race in affirmative action.”

been unmistakably clear that any deference must exist ‘within constitutionally prescribed limits.’”

IMPRECISE CATEGORIES (p. 33)

COMPELLING INTERESTS (p. 6)

Roberts added that the admissions programs in use by the two schools “also fail to comply with the Equal Protection Clause’s twin commands” and that they “require stereotyping — the very thing Grutter foreswore.” In a significant caveat, Roberts wrote “nothing prohibits universities from considering an applicant’s discussion of how race affected the applicant’s life.”

“Universities may define their missions as they see fit. The Constitution defines ours,” the Chief Justice wrote.

RACE QUA RACE (p. 37)

CAVEAT ON LIFE EXPERIENCES (p. 8)

However this usage of race, it continued, must be “concretely tied to a quality of character or unique ability that the particular applicant can contribute to the university.”

INVOKING BROWN (p. 4)

Roberts wrote that Harvard’s and UNC’s race-based admissions programs engage in “stereotyping” as they see an “inherent benefit in race qua race — in race for race’s sake.” “The entire point of the Equal Protection Clause is that treating someone differently because of their skin color is not like treating them differently because they are from a city or from a suburb, or because they play the violin poorly or well,” Roberts added. Criticizing the dissents — which were authored by Jackson and Associate Justice Sonia M. Sotomayor — Roberts wrote that they “do not acknowledge” Supreme Court precedent.

CAVEAT ON DISSCUSSION OF EFFECT ON LIFE (p. 47)

The opinion invoked Brown v. Board of Education, the landmark Supreme Court decision that struck down segregation in American schools. In an echo of his opinion in a 2007 case on race-based admissions at a Seattle high school — where Roberts wrote that “the only way to stop discriminating on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race” — the Chief Justice wrote that “eliminating racial discrimination means eliminating all of it.”

ECHO OF 2007 ROBERTS OPINION (p. 23)

“The principal dissent wrenches our case law from its context, going to lengths to ignore the parts of that law it does not like,” Roberts wrote. “Most troubling of all is what the dissent must make these omissions to defend: a judiciary that picks winners and losers based on the color of their skin.

CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY (p. 48) Thursday’s majority opinion referenced the precedent set in Grutter, which stated that universities would no longer need to use race in their college admissions programs after 25 years: “Twenty years later, no end is in sight.” Though Harvard’s and UNC’s admissions systems are “well intentioned and implemented in good faith,” the Court found that the universities’ programs fail the criteria for strict scrutiny. In a crucial footnote, Roberts acknowledged Solicitor General Elizabeth B. Prelogar’s argument that affirmative action in military academies is vital to national security, but noted that none of those schools’ policies are at question in this case. “This opinion also does not address the issue, in light of the potentially distinct interests that military academies may present,” Roberts wrote. The majority opinion continued that Harvard’s and UNC’s stated interests in a diverse student body “cannot be subjected to meaningful judicial review.”

INQUIRIES NO COURT COULD RESOLVE (p. 31)

“How many fewer leaders Harvard would create without racial preferences, or how much poorer the education at Harvard would be, are inquiries no court could resolve,” Roberts wrote. Roberts criticized Harvard and UNC for considering Asian American applicants as a single group, writing that by doing so, the schools “are apparently uninterested in whether South Asian or East Asian students are adequately represented, so long as there is enough of one to compensate for a lack of the other.” Conceding that past decisions have given universities latitude in how to run their affairs, Roberts wrote that, nonetheless, “we have

Toward the end of the opinion, Roberts again stated that while Harvard’s and UNC’s admissions programs violate the Equal Protection Clause, there is room for the targeted use of race in college admissions. “At the same time, as all parties agree, nothing in this opinion should be construed as prohibiting universities from considering an applicant’s discussion of how race affected his or her life, be it through discrimination, inspiration, or otherwise,” Roberts wrote. Roberts continued that “in other words, the student must be treated based on his or her experiences as an individual — not on the basis of race.”The Chief Justice concluded the opinion with a criticism of how universities have previously considered race in admissions, writing that “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,” Roberts wrote. rahem.hamid@thecrimson.com neil.shah@thecrimson.com

NEWS

THE HARVARD CRIMSON JUNE 30, 2023

THE DISSENTS IN QUOTES

The Court’s recharacterization of Brown is nothing but revisionist history and an affront to the legendary life of Justice Marshall, a great jurist who was a champion of true equal opportunity, not rhetorical flourishes about colorblindness. Sonia M. Sotomayor Supreme Court Associate Justice

In a rebuke of the majority, Associate Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson ‘92 wrote in her dissent that “deeming race irrelevant in law does not make it so in life.” COURTESY OF AP PHOTO / ANDREW HARNIK

DISSENT

Justices Rebuke Ruling in Dissents FIERY DISSENTS. Supreme Court Justices Sonia M. Sotomayor, Ketanji Brown Jackson, and Elena Kagan dissent in ruling on affirmative action. BY RAHEM D. HAMID AND J. SELLERS HILL CRIMSON STAFF WRITERS

upreme Court Associate Justices Sonia M. Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson ’92 fiercely dissented from the Supreme Court’s decision to dramatically limit the use of race in college admissions Thursday. Across nearly 100 pages, the two justices — who are on the court’s liberal wing — slammed Chief Justice John Roberts’s opinion for the majority — as well as concurrences by three other conservative justices — who ruled that race-conscious admissions policies at Harvard and the University of North Carolina were unconstitutional. “Today, this Court stands in the way and rolls back decades of precedent and momentous progress,” Sotomayor wrote in her 69page dissent, which was joined by Associate Justice Elena Kagan and in part by Jackson.

Jackson had recused herself from any part in the Harvard case due to her former position on the Board of Overseers, the University’s second-highest governing body. Her 29-page dissent focused solely on the merits of the case for UNC. Sotomayor read a summary of her decision from the bench on Thursday — a move reserved for particularly strong dissents. Her dissent dedicated several pages to the history of the 14th Amendment and its Equal Protection Clause, which the majority opinion stated “cannot be reconciled” with the race-conscious admissions criteria at Harvard and UNC. “The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment enshrines a guarantee of racial equality,” Sotomayor wrote. “The Court long ago concluded that this guarantee can be enforced through race-conscious means in a society that is not, and has never been, colorblind.” Her dissent also appeared to rebuke the interpretation of Brown v. Board of Education — the landmark 1954 ruling that prohibited racial segregation in public schools — by the court’s conservative wing. “The time for making distinctions based on race had passed,”

Roberts wrote of the Brown decision, which was extensively examined throughout the justices’ opinions. Sotomayor said that the Court’s opinion was “nothing but revisionist history and an affront to the legendary life of Justice Marshall” — the court’s first Black justice, who himself agreed in 1978 that race could be considered in college admissions. “Brown,” Sotomayor wrote, “was a race-conscious decision that emphasized the importance of education in our society.” Sotomayor also devoted several pages to the history of slavery, racism, and antisemitism at UNC and Harvard — extensively citing material from the University’s landmark legacy of slavery report. “These may be uncomfortable truths to some, but they are truths nonetheless,” she wrote. “It is against this historical backdrop that Harvard and UNC have reckoned with their past and its lingering effects.” “Acknowledging the reality that race has always mattered and continues to matter, these universities have established institutional goals of diversity and inclusion,” she wrote. Acknowledging a footnote in the majority’s opinion permit-

ting the use of race in admissions to military colleges, Sotomayor panned the decision as one that “harms not just respondents and students but also our institutions and democratic society more broadly.” “The majority recognizes the compelling need for diversity in the military and the national security implications at stake, but it ends race-conscious college admissions at civilian universities implicating those interests anyway,” she wrote. “The Court ignores the dangerous consequences of an America where its leadership does not reflect the diversity of the People,” Sotomayor later added. In her opinion, Jackson similarly enumerated historical and contemporary challenges that have uniquely burdened Black Americans, arguing they were relevant considerations for “colleges like UNC to assess merit fully.” “History speaks. In some form, it can be heard forever. The race-based gaps that first developed centuries ago are echoes from the past that still exist today,” Jackson added. “By all accounts, they are still stark.” One solution to address these gaps, Jackson asserted, was the use of race-conscious admissions

practices. “With let-them-eat-cake obliviousness, today, the majority pulls the ripcord and announces ‘colorblindness for all’ by legal fiat,” Jackson wrote. “But deeming race irrelevant in law does not make it so in life.” “If the colleges of this country are required to ignore a thing that matters, it will not just go away. It will take longer for racism to leave us. And, ultimately, ignoring race just makes it matter more,” she continued. Jackson also issued a strong rebuttal of Associate Justice Clarence Thomas’s concurrence, which spent seven pages attacking Jackson’s arguments. “Justice Thomas’s prolonged attack responds to a dissent that I did not write in order to assail an admissions program that is not the one UNC has crafted,” Jackson wrote. “Justice Thomas’s opinion also demonstrates an obsession with race consciousness that far outstrips my or UNC’s holistic understanding that race can be a factor that affects applicants’ unique life experiences.” Thomas, Jackson wrote, “ignites too many more straw men to list, or fully extinguish, here.”

History speaks. In some form, it can be heard forever. The race-based gaps that first developed centuries ago are echoes from the past that still exist today. By all accounts, they are still stark. Ketanji Brown Jackson ’92 Supreme Court Associate Justice

These may be uncomfortable truths to some, but they are truths nonetheless. Sonia M. Sotomayor Supreme Court Associate Justice

With let-them-eatcake obliviousness, today, the majority pulls the ripcord and announces “colorblindness for all” by legal fiat. But deeming race irrelevant in law does not make it so in life. Ketanji Brown Jackson ’92 Supreme Court Associate Justice

rahem.hamid@thecrimson.com sellers.hill@thecrimson.com

Harvard Reaffirms Commitment to Diversity, Will Abide by Ruling BY EMMA H. HAIDAR AND CLAIRE YUAN CRIMSON STAFF WRITERS

In response to the Supreme Court’s decision effectively striking down race-conscious admissions, Harvard leadership affirmed the University’s commitment to diversity while declaring it would abide by the ruling. The Court’s 6-2 decision, released Thursday morning, restricted affirmative action in higher education admissions and ruled Harvard’s race-conscious admissions practices unconstitutional — a major setback for the University. The ruling comes following years of scrutiny towards Harvard’s admissions practices, beginning when anti-affirmative action group Students for Fair Admissions filed its first suit in 2014. Harvard’s public response to the decision came an hour after the Supreme Court’s ruling. In a joint statement, Harvard’s top brass reaffirmed the University’s commitment to “the fundamental principle that deep and transformative teaching, learn-

ing, and research depend upon a community comprising people of many backgrounds, perspectives, and lived experiences.” The statement — jointly signed by outgoing University President Lawrence S. Bacow, President-elect Claudine Gay, Provost Alan M. Garber ’76, Executive Vice President Meredith Weenick, and the 15 University deans — stated that Harvard “will certainly comply with the Court’s decision.” In a press release, Edward J. Blum, president of Students for Fair Admissions, the anti-affirmative action group that brought the suit to the Supreme Court, threatened further litigation if Harvard and the University of North Carolina — the other defendant in the lawsuit — ignore the Court’s ruling. “We remain vigilant and intend to initiate litigation should universities defiantly flout this clear ruling and the dictates of Title VI and the Equal Protection Clause,” he stated. In the immediate aftermath of the decision, UNC Chancellor Kevin M. Guskiewicz released a statement reasserting the university’s commitment to “bringing

together talented students with different perspectives and life experiences and continues to make an affordable, high-quality education accessible to the people of North Carolina and beyond.” The message was then followed by another statement from David L. Boliek Jr., chairman of the UNC-Chapel Hill Board of Trustees. Both statements confirmed that UNC will also comply with the Supreme Court’s decision. In a brief video message, Gay echoed the joint Harvard statement, emphasizing Harvard’s commitment to diversity and opportunity. “For many, this decision feels deeply personal. It makes real the possibility that opportunities will be foreclosed, but at Harvard it has also strengthened our resolve to continue opening doors,” Gay said. Gay said the University will dedicate the coming weeks to “working to understand the decision and its implications for our policies.” “While we don’t have all the answers about what’s next, we do know that we will move forward together,” she added.

The Thursday joint statement also noted that the Court’s decision still allows universities to factor an individual applicant’s reflections on how race has impacted their life in the admissions process. The University has not yet confirmed any changes to its admissions practices. “In the weeks and months ahead, drawing on the talent and expertise of our Harvard community, we will determine how to preserve, consistent with the Court’s new precedent, our essential values,” the statement from University leadership reads. “To our students, faculty, staff, researchers, and alumni—past, present, and future—who call Harvard your home, please know that you are, and always will be, Harvard,” they wrote. “Nothing today has changed that.” emma.haidar@thecrimson.com claire.yuan@thecrimson.com

THE HARVARD CRIMSON

EDITORIAL

JUNE 30, 2023

OP-ED

Admissions Can’t Be a Dirty Word BY TOMMY BARONE

o fight for diversity on campus, we students have to talk about admissions. Behind every movement lies discourse. Only by the free exchange of ideas can we diagnose issues as worthy of action, identify solutions, and convince others to join us. That’s why the thing that unsettles me most about today’s decision is that admissions remains a dirty word on Harvard’s campus. There exists a politics of politeness that proscribes honest discussion about Harvard College’s admissions practices. This reluctance has long held back reform; now, it could restrain the student response to the fall of affirmative action too.

“

Why, then, are we keeping mum about everything else wrong with admissions? The short answer is that we’re worried about being impolite.

EMILY N. DIAL—CRIMSON DESIGNER

OP-ED

The Supreme Court Killed Campus Diversity. What Now? BY JOSEPH W. HERNANDEZ

arvard as we know it has come to an end. As each class is admitted without affirmative action in place, the Harvard that I applied to will slowly wither away, dying the day that the Class of 2027 graduates. After all, they will likely be remembered as the last diverse class to attend Harvard. As a result of the Supreme Court’s decision striking down affirmative action, race can now only be considered in college admissions indirectly, such as when an applicant details specific experiences of racial discrimination in their admissions essays. As colleges nationwide struggle to make sense of their now-shattered admissions systems, one question looms over them: What can they do to pick up the pieces? Both Students for Fair Admissions, which prevailed in the case, and a concurring member of the decision’s majority suggested that universities like Harvard could maintain diversity by adjusting their admissions policies to consider an applicant’s socioeconomic status. Such an approach, which is long overdue, may well be universities’ best option in a post-affirmative action world — it could allow colleges to account for the United States’ educational inequality, stratified by race and socioeconomic status. Even still, it is clear that educational disparities cannot and should not be reduced to a purely socioeconomic issue. As of 2019, the average primarily white school district — that is, in which over 75 percent of students are white — received $2,226 more in overall funding than the average school primarily attended by students of color, according to public education nonprofit EdBuild. Worse yet, even only including districts with poverty rates over 20 percent, primarily white school districts still received an average of $1,487 more per student than their primarily non-white counterparts.

“

Given the omnipresence of racism in the American education system, colleges simply can’t put a student’s accomplishments in proper context without considering race in admissions.

Though the Supreme Court may try, there’s no denying not only the prevalence of racism in the classroom but also its pronounced effects on students’ mental health, ability to engage in the classroom, and social isolation. Similarly, students of color are far more likely to be suspended for the same behavior as their white peers, starting as early as early as preschool. Unsurprisingly, the end result is an education system where equally intelligent students of color routinely perform worse on standardized tests and receive worse grades. Without affirmative action, these classroom inequalities will reign over admissions, unable to be accounted for unless a student treats their personal statement and supplemental essays as a laundry list of their experiences with racism. The painful truth is, the short-lived era of diversity on the college campus is about to draw to a close. Given the omnipresence of racism in the American education system, colleges simply can’t put a student’s accomplishments in

proper context without considering race in admissions. As a result, race-blind admissions will inherently favor white students. We’ve already seen this disaster play out before. When California outlawed affirmative action policies in its public universities in 1996, its flagship colleges saw an immediate dropoff in on-campus diversity. After well over twenty years of University of California-led efforts to pursue diversity with affirmative action outlawed, students of color remain drastically underrepresented.

“

While there will still be students of color who manage to win the upward battle that is Harvard admissions, it’s clear that the days of a diverse Harvard are coming to a close.

While the UC schools reached a peak of 37 percent of students belonging to underrepresented backgrounds in 2016, this was still woefully inadequate given that 56 percent of graduating high school students in California came from these backgrounds. And it’s not as if students of color weren’t pursuing higher education: While they are underrepresented at the more prestigious UC schools, Black and Latine students are overrepresented at the less prestigious California State University schools, which offer less financial aid, fewer job opportunities, and lower graduation rates. Without affirmative action, we can expect the exact same outcome nationwide. Unable to consider a student’s race, admissions offices will be forced to compare students’ resumes without the full context of the privilege and inequality that informed them. With today’s decision, the Supreme Court’s conservative justices have crafted a college admissions landscape effectively stacked against students of color. While there will still be students of color who manage to win the upward battle that is Harvard admissions, it’s clear that the days of a diverse Harvard are coming to a close. SFFA’s lawyers themselves have conceded that the number of Black students attending Harvard would decrease if affirmative action was overturned, though Harvard could gain socioeconomic diversity by scrapping legacy preferences and favoring low-income applicants. But this excuse rings hollow, as we easily could have had both racial and socioeconomic diversity. So today, I grieve the loss of the deeply flawed college that I had come to know and love; this death of diversity is not the change Harvard needed. Today, I grieve the loss of the Harvard that accepted low-income students of color like me; I was the first student from my high school to attend Harvard, and today, I fear I may be the last. Most of all, today I grieve the loss of the Harvard that tore me down, telling me that I did not belong time and time again, only for its communities of color to build me back up, reminding me that low-income brown kids deserve college, too. Today, the Supreme Court has sent an abundantly clear message: College is for the privileged.

–Joseph W. Hernandez ’25, a Crimson Editorial editor, is a Government concentrator in Adams House.

This hush does not result from a shortage of worthy topics. Harvard College gives significant admissions advantages to legacies, recruited athletes, the children of faculty, and the children of donors, a group that is collectively much whiter and wealthier than the rest of the student body. It holds open a backdoor for the kids of the rich and powerful in the form of the “Z-list.” And it slams the front door in the face of low-income students, with just 4.5 percent of undergraduates coming from the bottom quintile of the income distribution. In short, admissions at Harvard is perhaps more nakedly unfair than anywhere else in the nation. But, in my experience at least, you’ll hardly hear a word about admissions outside of affirmative action. Mostly, you’ll just find silence. This worries me, because if history is any guide, students have an essential role to play in holding the College accountable for reforming admissions practices to uphold diversity. From the anti-war protests of the 1960s, to the anti-Apartheid campaign of the 1980s, to the divestment campaigns of the 2010s, it is students that drive change on college campuses — and often, from there, in the wider world. And, indeed, my peers have fought the good fight for a racially diverse Harvard. Why, then, are we keeping mum about everything else wrong with admissions? The short answer is that we’re worried about being impolite. The essential problem with admissions discourse at Harvard is hidden in plain sight: We are the ones who got in. To talk about admissions is inescapably to talk about our own admission, and the admission of many of the people we love. As a result, criticizing the system feels needlessly indecent, like it questions whether any of us truly belong. So many of us stay quiet about our admissions hang-ups, or convince ourselves that they aren’t well-founded. “I know so many wonderful people admitted this way,” the logic goes, or “Admissions is arbitrary anyway.” I can appreciate this instinct to be circumspect. Kindness, respect, and humility matter greatly. But then I remember getting into Harvard, the first in my family to do anything like this. I remember the chest-emptying, body-shaking sobs from my mom. I remember the way my back crunched when my dad, blind with excitement, crushed me into a bear hug. I remember how my grandmother’s voice broke when she heard that I would attend the famous American university her husband, an immigrant from backwater Sicily, had always revered but would not live to see me enter. It was the raw, impolite joy of a family achieving a dream.

These best of memories linger like ghosts when I think about all the people for whom Harvard is unjustly put out of reach. They are what makes my blood boil when peers have dissuaded me from talking about admissions (“I just think it’s better not to say anything,” or “I think that makes people uncomfortable”). The College’s admissions practices deny life-changing opportunities to the low-income people who have historically had them least and needed them most. Unless Harvard responds decisively to today’s decision, they could again do that for people of color. A response that maintains or improves diversity on campus fundamentally requires cutting admissions preferences that benefit the white and wealthy. Cognizant of those touchy tradeoffs, we keep quiet about admissions, leaving an unfair status quo unquestioned. If we are to defend diversity, admissions cannot remain a dirty word at Harvard. To those who want to see admissions reform, I encourage you to express your views honestly and openly. More often than not, speaking with candor, kindness, and respect — no hating on rich kids or legacies, no singling out “undeserving” individuals — will not arouse bad feelings. Sometimes a little impropriety is worth it, but you must try your utmost to approach these conversations with a maximum of care. Of course, these criticisms will occasionally feel uncomfortable. When that happens, we would do well to remember that the inscrutable, impossible game of tradeoffs that produced our admission says nothing about who we are or what we deserve — at least, not in the broader, real-life sense of our personal worth. With this in mind, we should each resist the urge to dissuade

“

The College’s admissions practices deny life-changing opportunities to the low-income people who have historically had them least and needed them most.

the admissions reformists, strive to engage in good faith, and seriously examine what we believe fair admissions would look like. When we talk about free speech, it’s the culture wars that leap to mind — conservative self-silencing, groupthink, cancel culture. Awash in this noise, it’s easy to forget that plain old etiquette is often the basic reason our speech is imperfectly free. Difficult conversations require we set aside this politics of politeness and delve to the heart of things. If we don’t, I fear that when the coming years call us to speak out for diversity on campus, we just won’t have the words.

–Tommy Barone ’25, an Editorial Comp Director, is a Social Studies concentrator in Currier House. THC Read more opinions from The Crimson at THECRIMSON.COM

EMILY N. DIAL—CRIMSON DESIGNER

EDITORIAL

THE HARVARD CRIMSON

JUNE 30, 2023

STAFF EDITORIAL

Harvard Must Give Diversity New Life ONLY THE BEGINNING. While we despair at the Court’s striking of race-conscious admissions, Harvard must rise to the occasion and establish a truly praiseworthy model for higher education admissions. BY THE CRIMSON EDITORIAL BOARD

fter almost a decade of litigation pitting two of the oldest universities in the country against an organization hell-bent on ending race-based affirmative action, the Supreme Court has spoken: Race-conscious admissions in higher education are over. We now find ourselves in a state of utter post-affirmative action loss. A loss for our University, a loss for progress, and a loss for our nation resound in the aftermath of this decision. The Court’s majority opinion in Students for Fair Admissions Inc. v. President & Fellows of Harvard College holds that the admission processes at Harvard and the University of North Carolina violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. Thursday’s ruling contrasts with the Court’s precedents allowing universities to consider applicants’ race in admissions decisions — precedents in which justices cited Harvard’s admissions system as an exemplary model. The Court’s total pivot on Harvard’s admissions policies lays bare the issues that have always existed within our University’s implementation of affirmative action. We are forced to confront the question: How preciously does Harvard actually prize diversity? Harvard’s now-unconstitutional consideration of race in admissions involved measuring the study body using six categories. We find ourselves in agreement with the Court’s majority opinion on the single point — a narrow point of alignment within a decision that we otherwise find to be reeking of a repulsive “let-them-eat-cake obliviousness” to systemic racism, per Associate Justice Ketanji Brown-Jackson ’92 — that this method of consideration is inadequate. No racial group is a monolith; these six labels are insufficient to capture the varied experiences of the individuals classified under them. Given this coarse-toothed categorization, it’s not surprising that Generational African Americans may make up as little as 10 percent of Black students at Harvard — a statistic much grimmer than the topline figure that Black students represent 15.3 percent of students in the Class of 2027. This under-

“

We now find ourselves in a state of utter post-affirmative action loss. A loss for our University, a loss for progress, and a loss for our nation resound in the aftermath of this decision.

representation of a historically marginalized subgroup showcases Harvard’s ignorance of the necessary reparative element of affirmative action in a country with enduring systemic racial inequalities in education. And then there’s the socioeconomic diversity problem: If Harvard was truly sincere about cultivating a diverse student body, it would transparently and vocally ensure that students come from varied economic backgrounds.

Instead, published statistics about socioeconomic diversity are virtually nonexistent; we are forced to rely on unofficial counts that suggest the school is epically failing, like economist Raj Chetty’s finding that Harvard had 23 times as many higher-income students as lower-income students at the turn of the millennium. Some of these problems provided fodder for the Court’s majority to critique Harvard’s admission process, and to dismiss affirmative action as a reasonable policy to achieve diversity in higher education. But make no mistake: Harvard’s lackluster policies are not to blame for the recent ruling, and the Court’s decision does not at all undermine the importance of a racially diverse student body. Given the Supreme Court’s conservative posse, race-conscious admissions policies were living on borrowed time. In many regards, the decision was inevitable — almost preordained. To this end, we are grateful for the students and organizers who, despite the odds, rallied in defense of diversity in higher education. As the next application cycle approaches, Harvard must radically reimagine its methods of cultivating diversity in its student body — this time, without the glaring gaps.

Several decades ago, the Supreme Court considered Harvard’s admissions policies exemplary, even though they were far from perfect. While we despair at the Court’s striking of race-conscious admissions, Harvard must rise to the occasion and

THC Read more opinions from The Crimson at THECRIMSON.COM

“

As the next application cycle approaches, Harvard must radically reimagine its methods of cultivating diversity in its student body — this time, without the glaring gaps.

establish a truly praiseworthy model for higher education admissions — one that creatively and resourcefully reimagines its historical shortcomings to help diversity in higher education outlive its Supreme Court-issued death-knell.

–This staff editorial solely represents the majority view of The Crimson Editorial Board. It is the product of discussions at regular Editorial Board meetings. In order to ensure the impartiality of our journalism, Crimson editors who choose to opine and vote at these meetings are not involved in the reporting of articles on similar topics.

“

Harvard can now live up to the exemplary role the Court once said it modeled. One first step is obvious: Our school must finally end legacy admissions.

Administrators can affirm the abstract importance of diversity in stilted statements all they want, but we still need to see concrete changes. Harvard can now live up to the exemplary role the Court once said it modeled. One first step is obvious: Our school must finally end legacy admissions, which have disproportionately benefited wealthy white students for far too long. Harvard and other universities must also begin seriously considering applicants’ socioeconomic status in admissions. Household wealth profoundly affects applicants’ identities and experiences; admitting more low-income applicants contributes to a richer tapestry of backgrounds in the student body. Considering socioeconomic status instead of race won’t achieve the same racially diverse outcomes that affirmative action once helped promote because racial disparities exist beyond class. Yet, household wealth is at least a partial proxy for race, and greater attention to it in admissions decisions could help restore some of the racial diversity eroded by the Court’s latest ruling, while simultaneously cultivating much-needed socioeconomic diversity at America’s oldest and richest university. This decision is undoubtedly a depressing one. In tens of pages, six Supreme Court justices metaphorically ziptied Harvard’s hands behind its back, tightly curtailing its capacity to provide the enriching experience of a College education to those who might benefit from it most. University administrators pledging their commitments to diversity must contend with this inescapable reality. Promoting racial diversity is never easy, and the Court’s handcuffed hold on higher education admissions hasn’t helped. Still, we demand that Harvard — and schools across the country — uphold the commitments to racial diversity they publicly espouse.

EMILY N. DIAL—CRIMSON DESIGNER

OP-ED

Unfinished Business BY HARRY R. LEWIS

ou will have the privilege of teaching some of the most promising students from the best schools in America,” I used to say at the new faculty orientation when I was dean of the College. “And also some of the most promising students from the worst schools in America.” The outcome of Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard leaves a great challenge: How to provide a quality education to students whose preparations differ greatly in quality. Compared with the last time Harvard admissions was before the Supreme Court, the best American high schools are better than ever and the worst have gotten worse — and Harvard is recruiting students from across the whole spectrum. Harvard admissions will adjust to the end of racial affirmative action. It probably has already. The time when you could tell very much about students from their ethnicity has passed, so checkbox diversity has become a poor proxy for educational value added. Indeed, to continue justifying the practice on the basis of the educational merits of a racially diverse student body — which was the basis of the Supreme Court’s 2003 decision upholding race-based preferences — is to put an unconscionable burden on minority students. It tells them, in effect, that they are expected to conform to stereotypes, to represent their group’s perspective on whatever subject is under discussion. But race still plays a role in our lives here at Harvard, because we do not all live the same lives in America. A few years ago, a Black faculty colleague of mine was stopped by Boston police while run-

ning to catch a train — stopped simply for “running while Black.” No such thing has happened to me in eight decades of city living. In the classroom, this colleague was no different from me in any important way (except being smarter). But education

“

The outcome of Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard leaves a great challenge: How to provide a quality education to students whose preparations differ greatly in quality.

is more than just academic instruction, and to some students, his presence was in important ways more meaningful than mine. Harvard can and should be a place where race does not matter, but our country has a ways to go. So how do we resolve this paradox? How do we maintain a community in which we can learn from others’ diverse experiences, without forcing any individual to be a model for an identity group? I believe that admissions officers will do their job — judging applicants on the basis of what they have done with the opportunities that were available to them, rather than the absolute level they have reached. I am less confident that we, the faculty, understand the challenge set out to us by having that diver-

sity of backgrounds scattered through our classes. That is where the real work needs to be done. Some curricular adjustments are relatively easy, like gateway courses, on-ramps where students from more modest high schools can catch up quickly to the level of their more advantaged peers. These should be priorities, but are often afterthoughts. Too few professors take joy in teaching math, or poetry, to eager but poorly schooled novices — because the system for hiring, promoting, and rewarding faculty does not motivate it. But some problems are more subtle. Consider the plight of the humanities. Relative enrollment in humanities majors has shrunk as the student body has become more diverse. Socioeconomically disadvantaged students are less likely to enroll in the humanities, perhaps reflecting expecta-

“

I am less confident that we, the faculty, understand the challenge set out to us by having that diversity of backgrounds scattered through our classes. That is where the real work needs to be done.

tions of what it means to be upwardly mobile. But it’s not that they dislike the humanities — they know less about the field, having in many cases attended under-resourced high schools with only the most utilitarian English curricula.

A Computer Science colleague from another institution recently told me that he had taught a course jointly with an English professor, and the course was dual-numbered between the two departments. At the first meeting the professors asked students to say a few words about what they wanted to get out of the course. One student said that she wanted to read literature — she picked this course because if she signed up for it under the Computer Science number, she could do so without having to answer questions back home about why she was wasting her time studying English. Then two other students acknowledged thinking the same thing. These students feel a different kind of pressure to conform to type. Disadvantaged students have had a different American experience, one that profoundly affects their lives at Harvard. When I encourage students to take time off, either to scratch an entrepreneurial itch or to get their heads together when their motivation and performance flag, they are far more likely to take my advice seriously if they come from middle- or upper-class family backgrounds. No rich student ever told me, “But grandma would kill me if I dropped out of Harvard!” The process of diversifying the student body will continue, perhaps changed as a result of the Supreme Court decision. A great challenge remains: What can Harvard do to free its educationally and socioeconomically disadvantaged students to have the life-changing experiences here that more advantaged students can choose without hesitation or guilt?

–Harry R. Lewis ’68 is the Gordon McKay Research Professor of Computer Science and a former Dean of Harvard College.

THE HARVARD CRIMSON

NEWS

JUNE 30, 2023

STUDENTS FOR FAIR ADMISSIONS

SFFA Celebrates End of Affirmative Action ‘NEW CHAPTER.’ Anti-affirmative action group Students for Fair Admissions commended the Court’s decision, representing a victory in a nine-year legal battle by the organization and its president, Edward J. Blum.

“The opinion issued today by the United States Supreme Court marks the beginning of the restoration of the colorblind legal covenant that binds together our multi-racial, multi-ethnic nation,” SFFA president Edward J. Blum said at the conference. “The administrators of higher education must note the law will n o t tolerate direct proxies

BY MICHELLE N. AMPONSAH AND EMMA H. HAIDAR CRIMSON STAFF WRITERS

ollowing the Supreme Court’s ruling severely restricting affirmative action in higher education admissions, anti-affirmative action group Students for Fair Admissions praised the Court’s decision at a press conference in Washington Thursday afternoon.

for racial classifications,” Blum added. “For those in leadership positions at public and private universities, you have an obligation to follow the letter and the spirit of the law.” SFFA first filed suit against Harvard in 2014, alleging that Harvard’s race-conscious admissions policies discriminate against Asian American applicants and violate Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Calvin Yang, a participating member of SFFA who was denied admission to Harvard; Thomas R. McCarthy, chief trial counsel in the University of North Carolina case; and Adam K. Mortara, chief trial counsel in SFFA v. Harvard also spoke at the press conference. When asked if SFFA would litigate the use of a f f i r m a -

tive action by military academies — which the Court noted its ruling does not address — Mortara, the SFFA senior counsel, said the group is “still digesting” the decision and did not comment on future plans. SFFA board member Kenny Xu said he does not think Harvard “should be in the business of determining how adverse of an experience somebody has been through.” “I believe that race is the least important part about a person. I believe your merit, your abilities, your ambitions, your skill — those are far far more important than race,” Xu said. Other members said the decision marks the beginning of “a new chapter” in the

history of Asian Americans in the United States. “It marks the promise of a new beginning, a resurgence of the principles of the American Dream, and a return to the egalitarian principles for all in this shining city upon a hill,” Yang said. “It belongs to all of us who deserved a chance, and we can now rejoice in the fact that at least our kids can be judged based on their achievements and merits alone,” he added. Richard D. Kahlenberg ’85, a professorial lecturer at George Washington University’s School of Public Policy and Public Administration, wrote in an emailed statement that the ruling is “a victory for low-income and working-class students of all races.” “Harvard has said, to its credit, that it remains committed to racial diversity, so it will have to find new ways to achieve that goal,” wrote Kahlenberg, whom SFFA previously paid to analyze Harvard admissions data. “The most obvious step available is to provide a leg up to economically disadvantaged students of all races, a disproportionate share of whom are Black and Hispanic, and to jettison unfair preferences for the children of alumni, donors, and faculty.” “In this way, a conservative Supreme Court decision will, paradoxically, produce a new set of liberal policies that Harvard should have adopted all along,” he added. The Asian American Coalition for Education — which represents more than 350 Asian

American organizations that support SFFA’s legal challenge and has written five amicus briefs backing SFFA — issued a statement titled “A Historic Victory for Asian and All Americans,” which affirms the court’s ruling and calls for “concrete measures” to address the “root causes of the failing K-12 education.” “Today we finally see that the justices of the U.S. Supreme Court have provided equal protection of the laws to our communities,” AACE president Yukong Mike Zhao said. “This is a historic victory for Asian Americans, because our children will no longer be treated as second-class citizens in college admissions.” The decision against Harvard concludes a nine-year effort by SFFA to strike down affirmative action, including rulings by two lower courts to uphold Harvard’s race-conscious admissions policies. Federal judge Allison D. Burroughs ruled in Harvard’s favor in 2019, writing that “Harvard’s admissions program is narrowly tailored to achieve a diverse class and the benefits that flow therefrom.” SFFA immediately appealed the decision to the First Circuit Court of Appeals, which also upheld Harvard’s race-conscious admissions policy in 2020. The Supreme Court accepted SFFA’s petition to review the case in January 2022. Justices heard oral arguments in October and issued a single decision on both cases Thursday. michelle.amponsah@thecrimson.com emma.haidar@thecrimson.com

During a press conference in Washington, D.C. Thursday, Students for Fair Admissions President Edward J. Blum called on higher education administrators to obey the Court’s decision. JULIAN J. GIORDIANO—CRIMSON PHOTOGRAPHER

Harvard Faculty Dismayed by Ruling, Citing Impact on Diversity BY RYAN H. DOAN-NGUYEN AND ELIAS J. SCHISGALL CRIMSON STAFF WRITERS

Several Harvard faculty members said they were disappointed — though not surprised — in the hours following the Supreme Court’s Thursday decision to dramatically restrict affirmative action. Still, some expressed hope for Harvard’s ability to maintain diversity in its student body. The Court ruled 6-2 against Harvard and 6-3 against the University of North Carolina in twin lawsuits filed by Students for Fair Admissions, an anti-affirmative action group. It found that the two schools’ race-conscious admissions policies violated the

Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. In emails and interviews Thursday, several faculty members said they were dismayed by the Court’s ruling and the effect it could have on racial diversity in higher education. Cornell William Brooks, a professor of the practice at the Harvard Kennedy School and former president of the NAACP, said the Court’s “colorblind” reading of the 14th Amendment — originally used to protect African Americans who were newly freed from enslavement — was “intellectually duplicitous” while “flatly ignoring the history” of Reconstruction. “There’s a kind of fanciful quality to this opinion that demonstrates that these folks

either don’t care or don’t know about the realities of racial subjugation,” Brooks said. Janet Gyatso, a professor of Buddhist Studies at the Harvard Divinity School, called the decision a “huge blow” for efforts to diversify higher education. “I believe that we’ve made really a lot of good progress because of affirmative action,” Gyatso said in an interview. “It’s really functioned to give lots of other people opportunities and raise up different communities who were disadvantaged and put them on an even playing field.” “Now, we’re not going to be able to do that anymore,” she added. An hour after Thursday’s ruling, Harvard’s top administrators issued a joint statement say-

Members of Harvard’s faculty expressed dismay — though not shock — at the Supreme Court’s decision Thursday severely curtailing affirmative action in higher education. NAOMI S. CASTELLON-PEREZ— CRIMSON PHOTOGRAPHER

ing they would comply with the ruling, reiterating their commitment to the value of diversity in higher education. In messages over email lists, the faculty deans of most of Harvard’s 12 undergraduate dormitories seconded the University’s statement and encouraged students to reach out to House staff to discuss the ruling. “We are very much feeling the gravity of the ruling,” wrote Quincy House Faculty Deans Eric Beerbohm and Leslie J. Duhaylongsod in a message to Quincy affiliates. “In our role as Faculty Deans, we passionately believe that diversity and inclusion are key attributes of a successful learning community.” In an email, Biology professor Andrew A. Biewener wrote his reaction was one of “grave disappointment” but added that he was “not surprised given the biased make-up of SCOTUS these days and their political activism in turning over long-held and settled opinions.” “Harvard will work hard, I am sure, to minimize the impact this will have on sustaining a diverse admissions program,” he wrote. Government professor Danielle S. Allen, a University Professor and the outgoing director of the Edmond and Lily Safra Center for Ethics, similarly said she felt the University “will be able to continue to unite the goals of excellence and inclusion” in an email. “The time is here to embrace innovation in how we pursue inclusive excellence,” Allen wrote. “Talent is everywhere, and we need to turn the crank on our admissions methods and innovate to ensure we can see talent and accomplishment in its myriad forms.” Brooks, the HKS professor, said that for Harvard, maintaining student body diversity “will be difficult under this ruling, but I hope not impossible.” “If there is any institution that could do it, it would be Harvard,” Brooks added.

The majority opinion, penned by Chief Justice John Roberts ’76, ruled that universities could no longer utilize race-based preferences in admissions to increase diversity — the rationale the Court had accepted when it upheld affirmative action in the 1978 case Regents of the University of California v. Bakke. But Roberts wrote that admissions officers could still consider an individual applicant’s “discussion of how race affected the applicant’s life.” Thomas J. Kane, a professor at the Harvard Graduate School of Education who studies affirmative action, wrote in an email that many commentators misunderstand the Bakke decision. Kane wrote that the 1978 decision only allows for affirmative action for the purpose of promoting diversity, not correcting historical racial injustice. But Kane added the Court’s decision Thursday will allow schools to “address the ongoing impacts of racial bias on individual students today.” “The decision took away the ‘diversity’ rationale, but it simultaneously handed Harvard a mandate with even greater moral force: recognizing the obstacles that students have overcome, whether they be physical, economic, social, gender OR race-based,” Kane wrote. He said Harvard could consider an optional question on its application inviting applicants to describe how they have overcome obstacles, including obstacles related to race, or could pursue “need positive” admissions by giving a boost to low-income applicants. Brooks said this caveat in the ruling shifts the “evidentiary burden” onto college applicants to “prove in an individualized way” their experience of racial inequality or discrimination. “What do you choose? Do you say, ‘My school system has been segregated for thus or so many years’?” Brooks said. “No matter what you put in your admissions

essay, there are 10 studies that state the obvious.” Humanities professor Homi K. Bhabha said Roberts’ emphasis on specific applicants’ experiences of racial discrimination was “a completely individualistic view of how race affects a whole collective group of people, how race holds back the progress of a community.” “What this judgment suggests is that any progress and achievement is really to be attributed to the individual, not to their collective history,” Bhabha said. But at least one faculty member heralded the Court’s decision. “It came as a pleasure — you could say a joy,” said Government professor Harvey C. Mansfield ’53, who retires from his professorship in just a few days. Mansfield said he believes diversity should mean “a diversity of viewpoint,” and affirmative action “is a kind of euphemism” for racial discrimination. “The basis of the whole decision is a simple proposition that your mother tells you: Two wrongs don’t make a right,” he said. “You can’t eliminate discrimination by practicing it.” Mansfield said that the reason Harvard has upheld affirmative action until this point is because the University wants “to make amends for the sad and sorry history of slavery and segregation.” “That’s all right, but it means racial discrimination against those who weren’t Black,” Mansfield said. “You want to admit people you admire, not people you feel sorry for,” he added. Mansfield said Harvard’s mission “to bring together the best students in the country” was “diluted and not forwarded” by practicing affirmative action in its admissions. “Harvard has been in a bubble, and now — suddenly — it’s pricked,” he said. ryan.doannguyen@thecrimson.com elias.schisgall@thecrimson.com

NEWS

THE HARVARD CRIMSON JUNE 30, 2023

STUDENT REACTIONS

Some students made their way to Washington, D.C. Thursday to protest the Supreme Court’s decision effectively striking down affirmative aciton. JULIAN J. GIORDIANO—CRIMSON PHOTOGRAPHER

Students Decry End of Affirmative Action ‘A GUT PUNCH.’ Harvard students lamented the Court’s decision, citing concerns that diversity at the school would suffer. BY NATALIE K BANDURA AND ADELAIDE E. PARKER CRIMSON STAFF WRITERS

arvard students widely condemned the Supreme Court’s decision on Thursday to sharply restrict the consideration of race in college admissions, expressing fear and sadness that the ruling is likely to reduce racial diversity at the school. Harvard has defended its admissions process against a lawsuit from Students for Fair Admissions, an anti-affirmative action group, since 2014. Thursday’s ruling upended longstanding college admissions practices and is expected to change the makeup of future classes — reducing the number of Black, Lat-

inx, and Native American students — at universities across the country. “Even though we knew based on the conservative makeup of the [court] that this is probably how it was gonna go, I think it was absolutely shocking because it goes against 45 years of established precedent on affirmative action,” Muskaan Arshad ’25 said. “It was absolutely shocking, devastating, a gut punch.” Affirmative action policies in higher education, long a contentious issue in the United States, are viewed unfavorably among Americans broadly. Ahead of the Court’s decision, a Pew Research Center poll published June 8 found that 50 percent of U.S. adults disapprove of the practice while 33 percent approve of it. Among Harvard students, however, affirmative action policies are immensely popular. The Crimson’s Class of 2023 Senior Survey found that 63 percent of respondents in the graduating class supported affirmative ac-

tion, while just 15 percent opposed it. SFFA has long argued the elimination of affirmative action would make college admissions more equitable. But in interviews following SFFA’s victory Thursday, Harvard students said they believe the ruling will do the opposite. “Considering race doesn’t make the system unfair — it corrects for the historic and present conditions which often make it difficult for top universities to recognize and admit racially diverse talent, while simultaneously increasing inclusion and diversity in higher education,” incoming freshman Justin Black ’27 wrote in an emailed statement. “I believe not considering race as one of many factors makes the system unfair.” “This case isn’t really just about getting into Harvard. It’s about building a more equitable and fair and diverse future and unfortunately, that was ruled against,” Rebecca S. Zhang ’26

said in an interview. Black said a race-blind approach to admissions would ignore Harvard’s long history of being a white-only institution, as well as the lasting impacts of systemic racial discrimination, which “resulted in worse socioeconomic conditions for students of color, impacting the strength of their application.” Leah Yeshitila ’26 said she feels “sad” to see what she feels is a “misuse of the equal protection clause from the Brown v. Board of Education case” to overturn affirmative action. “Race neutral is the new separate but equal, because it lacks so much support in recent historical context,” Yeshitila said. “It allows for the various racial inequities that already exist to continue existing, and that is racism. Not addressing racism is racism.” Reflecting on her Asian American heritage, Isabella Q. Cao ’26 said she finds it “disheartening” to see Asian Americans

pitted against other minority groups as the victims of affirmative action. “Lumping all Asians together and saying that Asians are all academically successful, or that there’s this model minority, I feel like, first of all, it’s very dismissive towards the struggles that some Asian communities have faced,” Cao said. Students also lamented the damaging effects of a potential drop in racial diversity in higher education institutions. Having grown up in a predominantly white community in Arkansas, Arshad said she fears the decision will “completely change the makeup of our university” by restricting the diversity that has had a positive impact on her college experience. “I would wear lighter foundations and hide my culture and not even talk to other brown people,” Arshad said, referring to her hometown in Arkansas. “Because this is such a homogenous white space, I was like I need to

fit in, I need to forget about my identity.” “Coming over to such a diverse environment, I was allowed to be myself, I can really change the way I viewed myself, how I viewed my culture, my identity as an Asian American brown woman,“ she added. “It completely changed my life.” Nuriel R. Vera-DeGraff ’26 highlighted the likely impact the ruling will have on the racial makeup of the professional workforce, as graduate schools “will suffer a lot in terms of their diversity.” “Having less breadth in Black and brown lawyers and judges will make it much harder to progress towards racial equity on the legal side,” Vera-DeGraff said. “On the healthcare side, I think having less black and brown doctors and nurses will exacerbate the already horrible inequities.” natalie.bandura@thecrimson.com adelaide.parker@thecrimson.com

Biden Administration, Massachusetts Officials Condemn Ruling BY SAMUEL P. GOLDSTON AND YUSUF S. MIAN CRIMSON STAFF WRITERS

The Biden administration, Massachusetts state officials, and local Cambridge leaders have condemned the Supreme Court’s decision to effectively ban affirmative action in higher education admissions. In a 6-2 decision, the Court held that Harvard’s race-conscious admissions policies are unconstitutional as the culmination of a yearslong lawsuit by anti-affirmative action group Students for Fair Admissions. The Court also ruled against the University of North Carolina’s admissions policies in a 6-3 decision. In a Thursday address from the White House, President Joe Biden criticized the Court’s decision and argued for the importance of diversity on college campuses. “I strongly, strongly disagree with the Court’s decision,” Biden said. “I’ve always believed that one of the greatest strengths of America — you’re tired of hearing me say it — is our diversity,” he said. “I believe our colleges are stronger when they are racially diverse.”

Biden announced during the speech that he is directing the Department of Education to scrutinize practices that “expand privilege instead of opportunity,” including legacy admissions. In a Thursday press release, U.S. Secretary of Education Miguel A. Cardona called on leaders in higher education to continue their “commitment” to diversity. “Your leadership and commitment to ensuring our educational institutions reflect the vast and rich diversity of our people are needed now more than ever,” he wrote. In response to a question from a reporter, Biden took aim at the nation’s highest court. “This is not a normal court,” he said. Republican leaders, however, broadly expressed support for the Court’s decision, including a wide swath of the GOP presidential primary field. In a post to Truth Social, former President Donald Trump wrote that the decision marked “a great day for America.” “Our greatest minds must be cherished and that’s what this wonderful day has brought. We’re going back to all merit-based— and that’s the way it should be!” the 2024 GOP frontrunner wrote.

Presidential candidate Vivek G. Ramaswamy ’07 also celebrated the end of affirmative action, which he referred to as “the single greatest form of institutional racism in America today” in a tweet. Massachusetts elected officials have echoed Biden’s denunciation of the Court’s decision. Senator Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.) eviscerated the deci-

ity,” he added. In a joint statement, more than 100 elected officials, leaders at higher education institutions, and organizers — including Massachusetts Governor Maura T. Healey ’92, Lieutenant Governor Kim L. Driscoll, and Attorney General Andrea J. Campbell — wrote that Massachusetts will “continue to break down barriers

“

I’ve always believed that one of the greatest strengths of America — you’re tired of hearing me say it — is our diversity,

Joe Biden 46th President of the United States

sion at a Thursday press conference in Boston. “The Supreme Court of the United States is stomping on the dreams of our young people,” Markey said. “The Supreme Court majority may think that they are blind to race, but what they are truly blind to is inequal-

to higher education.” “Today’s decision, while disappointing, will not change our commitment to these students. We have an imperative to make sure our schools reflect our communities,” they wrote. Boston Mayor Michelle Wu ’07 also condemned the “ultra

conservative majority” of the Supreme Court for its decision. “We fully reject the court’s worldview & recommit to the vital work of building a more just & equitable society for all our communities,” she wrote in a tweet. Cambridge City Manager YiAn Huang ’05 said in an interview that the ruling would hinder diversity programs at Harvard and other Cambridge universities and could set a precedent for challenges to Cambridge’s equity initiatives. “If you look at the work that the city is doing on a variety of equity issues, there are real policies that are looking at historical disparities and how we might remedy those,” he said. The ruling, he continued, means it will be “harder to make progress on some of the underlying racial inequities that we’re seeing.” On May 8, Cambridge signed onto the Commonwealth Development Compact, an agreement tying public and private real estate development to diversity, equity, and inclusion criteria. Such criteria can include the involvement of minority-owned businesses and minority investors, which could soon be challenged on constitutional grounds. Huang also expressed concern

about how Harvard’s race-conscious admissions policies have treated Asian American applicants as a single broad category. “I feel torn because, fundamentally, I think the ruling is flawed, and yet at the same time, I think that the admissions policy does need examination and critique,” he said. “I do think the administration is fairly aware of that.” Cambridge Mayor Sumbul Siddiqui was similarly disappointed at the decision. “In Cambridge, we have worked tirelessly to ensure that all students, regardless of their background, feel empowered in our private and public institutions,” she wrote in a statement. “Following this decision, I understand it is crucial that we remain dedicated to dismantling barriers to higher education.” In his address, Biden called for continued efforts to protect diversity on college campuses in spite of the Court’s decision. “We cannot let the decision be a permanent setback for the country,” he said. “We need to keep an open door of opportunities.” samuel.goldston@thecrimson.com yusud.mian@thecrimson.com

THE HARVARD CRIMSON

NEWS

JUNE 30, 2023

CONCURRENCES

Concurrences Castigate Harvard and UNC STRONG CRITICISM. Justice Clarence Thomas challenged the idea that Harvard and UNC are “trustworthy arbiters.” BY PATON D. ROBERTS AND CLAIRE YUAN CRIMSON STAFF WRITERS

oncurrences in Thursday’s Supreme Court decision, which severely restricted affirmative action in college admissions, further challenged the legal foundations and impacts of race-conscious admissions. Alongside a majority opinion from Chief Justice John Roberts, Associate Justices Clarence Thomas, Neil M. Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh backed a colorblind approach, attacked the efficacy of affirmative action policies, and took aim at the dissenting judges. The ruling comes out of anti-affirmative action group Students for Fair Admissions’ first lawsuit against the University in 2014. In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court also ruled against the University of North Carolina and its admissions practices. Thomas grounded his concurrence — extending nearly 20 pages longer than Roberts’ opinion — in an extensive history of Supreme Court decisions, legislation, and political theory. He argued that affirmative action amounts to racial discrimination under the Constitution and provided an “originalist defense of the colorblind Constitution.” In his opinion, he also aimed to expand on the “flaws of the Court’s Grutter jurisprudence.” Grutter v. Bollinger — a 2003 case allowing the continued use of race as a factor in student admissions processes — hinged on the “educational benefits of a diverse student body.” Though Thomas acknowledged that “exposure to different perspectives and thoughts can foster debate, sharpen young minds, and hone students’ reasoning skills,” he found it “not clear how diversity with respect to race, qua race, furthers this goal.” Rather than increasing the

overall number of Black and Hispanic students in college, Thomas argued, affirmative action serves to “redistribute individuals among institutions of higher learning, placing some into more competitive in-

stitutions t h a n t h e y otherw i s e wo u l d have a t tended.” He wrote that policies like affirmative action are “leading to a world in which everyone is defined by their skin color, demanding ever-increasing entitlements and preferences on that basis.” Thomas also took issue with the universities themselves. Referencing Harvard’s past antisemitic admissions policies

and its “prominent role in the eugenics movement,” Thomas said neither Harvard nor UNC’s histories place

In his opinion, Thomas argues that Jackson believes “the legacy of slavery and the nature of inherited wealth” necessarily “locks blacks into a seemingly perpetual inferior caste.” “Such a view is irrational; it is an insult to individ-

Thomas added. Harvard has long denied that its race-conscious admissions program discriminates against Asian Americans. “For almost a decade,

JULIAN J. GIORDANO—CRIMSON PHOTOGRAPHER

them as “trustworthy arbiters” of the necessity of affirmative action. “Both Harvard and UNC have a history of racial discrimination,” he wrote. “But, neither have even attempted to explain how their current racially discriminatory programs are even remotely traceable to their past discriminatory conduct.” “Those engaged in racial discrimination do not deserve deference with respect to their reasons for discriminating,”

Harvard has vigorously defended an admissions system that, as two federal courts ruled, fully complied with longstanding precedent,” top University leaders wrote in a statement. Thomas also took aim at Associate Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson ’92. Jackson recused herself from the decision due to her former position on Harvard’s Board of Overseers — the University’s second-highest governing body — but wrote the dissent in the UNC case and joined part of Associate Justice Sonia M. Sotomayor’s dissent.

ual achievement and cancerous to young minds seeking to push through barriers, rather than consign themselves to permanent victimhood,” Thomas wrote. In a concurrence joined by Thomas, Gorsuch argued that affirmative action violated Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 — adding support to Roberts’ reliance on the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment in the majority opinion. Title VI states that any programs that receive federal funding will not be allowed to discriminate against people on

the grounds of “race, color, or national origin.” He highlighted the clause’s wording as both “powerful” and “easy to understand.” Both Harvard and UNC receive millions of dollars in federal funding every year. Echoing Roberts and Thomas, Gorsuch pointed to classification by race as an overly bureaucratic creation resting on “irrational” stereotypes. Gorsuch also highlighted SFFA evidence suggesting that Harvard would be able to “nearly replicate” the student body’s current racial composition “without resorting to racebased practices” by instead adding boosts for socioeconomically disadvantaged students and reducing them for children of faculty, donors, and alumni. Harvard has not announced any plans to stop the use of legacy, donor, or athlete preferences, even as peer universities and lawmakers challenge the practice. In his concurring opinion, Kavanaugh argued that while “the effects of past racial discrimination still persist,” affirmative action should not be extended indefinitely into the future based on the Supreme Court’s precedents. He pointed to Grutter, in which the majority opinion stated that race-conscious admissions policies “must have a logical end point.” “I respectfully part ways with my dissenting colleagues on the question of whether, under this Court’s precedents, race-based affirmative action in higher education may extend indefinitely into the future,” he wrote. “The dissents suggest that the answer is yes. But this Court’s precedents make clear that the answer is no.” Kavanaugh pointed to the specific 25-year time limit set forth by the Supreme Court in Grutter, which he wrote was meant to ensure that “racebased affirmative action in higher education could continue only for another generation.” “I would abide by that temporal limit rather than discarding it, as today’s dissents would do,” Kavanaugh wrote. paton.roberts@thecrimson.com claire.yuan@thecrimson.com

Supreme Court, President Biden Take Aim at Legacy Admissions BY RAHEM D. HAMID AND THOMAS J. METE CRIMSON STAFF WRITERS

Legacy admissions are under renewed scrutiny following the Supreme Court’s Thursday decision to dramatically curtail the use of race in college admissions. Though the Supreme Court is divided along ideological lines on the use of race as a factor in admissions, opposing opinions from conservative Justice Neil M. Gorsuch and Justice Sonia M. Sotomayor, the Court’s most senior liberal, found common ground in criticizing Harvard’s practice of giving preference to ALDC applicants — meaning athletes, legacies, primary relatives of donors, and children of faculty or staff — in admissions. In oral arguments last October, several conservative justices had floated removing legacy preferences as a race-neutral alternative for Harvard’s admissions process. President Joe Biden also took aim at legacy admissions in a press conference following the decision, announcing that he has instructed the Department of Education “to analyze what practices help build more inclusive and diverse student bodies and what practices hold that back — practices like legacy admissions and other systems that expand privilege instead of opportunity.” In a concurring opinion released alongside the Court’s decision, Gorsuch — who voted with the majority in Thursday’s ruling — argued that Harvard’s ALDC preferences in its admis-

sion process “undoubtedly benefit white and wealthy applicants the most.” “Its preferences for the children of donors, alumni, and faculty are no help to applicants who cannot boast of their parents’ good fortune or trips to the alumni tent all their lives,” Gorsuch wrote. Gorsuch pointed to evidence submitted by Students for Fair Admissions last October that Harvard could “replicate the current racial composition of its student body without resorting to race-based practices.” “Many other universities across the country, SFFA points out, have sought to do just that by reducing legacy preferences, increasing financial aid, and the like,” Gorsuch wrote.

wrote. Harvard Dean of Admissions and Financial Aid William R. Fitzsimmons ’67 has long defended legacy preferences, with Fitzsimmons saying in a March interview that the policy only gives a “slight tip.” In her dissent, Sotomayor also blasted legacy admissions but, unlike Gorsuch, argued that Harvard’s continued practice of giving preference to ALDC ap-

So often, we just accept that money, power, and privilege are perfectly justifiable forms of affirmative action. Michelle Obama Former First Lady of the United States

SFFA contended that if Harvard provided applicants from socioeconomically disadvantaged backgrounds with “just half of the tip it gives recruited athletes” and eliminated all preference in admissions for applicants of donors, alumni, and faculty, they would yield the results that affirmative action policies produce. “At trial, however, Harvard resisted this proposal,” Gorsuch

Source: Arcidiacono et al. 2019

plicants — who are 67.8 percent white — underscored the need for affirmative action. She referred to statistics provided in oral arguments this fall that showed “ALDC applicants make up less than 5% of applicants to Harvard” despite making up “around 30% of the applicants admitted each year.” “Stated simply, race is one small piece of a much larger admissions puzzle where most of

the pieces disfavor underrepresented racial minorities,” she wrote. “That is precisely why underrepresented racial minorities remain underrepresented.” In a statement Thursday, former First Lady Michelle Obama wrote that “we usually don’t question” whether students who are children of alumni or had access to “lavish” resources in high school belonged at selective colleges, despite such students be-

ing “granted special consideration for admissions.” “So often, we just accept that money, power, and privilege are perfectly justifiable forms of affirmative action, while kids growing up like I did are expected to compete when the ground is anything but level,” she wrote. rahem.hamid@thecrimson.com thomas.mete@thecrimson.com

NEWS

THE HARVARD CRIMSON JUNE 30, 2023

PROTESTS IN WASHINGTON

Protesters Rally After Court Decision ACTIVISTS CLASH. Pro- and anti-affirmative action protesters clash in Washington after the Supreme Court’s ruling.

planned to speak, but both groups were moved away from the courthouse by police due to reports of a “suspicious package.” The two groups congregated on the edge of the Capitol grounds. At one point, there was a confrontation bet w e e n proand anti-affirmative action demonstrators. Kashish Bastola ’26 — who flew to Wa s h i n g t o n from St. Louis Thursday morning — said he had a conversation with an older woman that “escalated really quickly.” “I asked her, ‘Are you proud of yourself? Do you think you’re representing our community?’ And she said she doesn’t even identify as South Asian and that she thinks that our country has been ridden by race,” Bastola

BY MICHELLE N. AMPONSAH AND CAM E. KETTLES CRIMSON STAFF WRITERS

ffirmative action supporters and counterprotesters clashed on Capitol Hill on Thursday following the Supreme Court’s decision effectively striking down affirmative action in higher education. The Supreme Court delivered a severe blow to affirmative action in its 6-2 ruling against Harvard on Thursday, reversing nearly 50 years of precedent. The majority opinion, written by Chief Justice John Roberts ’76, found that Harvard’s and the University of North Carolina’s race-conscious admission policies violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. Ahead of the Court’s ruling on affirmative action, student organizers had planned a rally and press conference with several advocacy organizations, including the NAACP Legal Defense Fund. Due to poor air quality conditions in Washington on Thursday, the press conference was moved indoors to the Friends Committee on National Legislation building. “Originally, this wasn’t supposed to happen because of the air quality, but we knew we just couldn’t stand aside and let SFFA speak for people who are supposed to be students applying and take that narrative,” said Nahla C. Owens ’25 of Defend Di-

I don’t want universities to think they have a cop-out or an excuse. They’re still responsible for ensuring that they have diverse populations on their campuses. Joel O. Crawford ’26

Pro-affirmative action protesters held a demonstration at the U.S. Capitol following Thursday’s decision. JULIAN J. GIORDANO—CRIMSON PHOTOGRAPHER

Anti-affirmative action protesters celebrated the restriction of the use of race in admissions. JULIAN J. GIORDANO—CRIMSON PHOTOGRAPHER

It’s really important to us that we have student voices in this work because we are the ones who are directly impacted. Elyse G. Martin-Smith ’25 Harvard BSA Political Action Chair

versity. Owens said while she was not surprised by the Court’s decision in the Harvard case, her “heart was sinking” when it was announced. “My grandma had been working hard to desegregate her school district, and to think that the progress she had worked for and that her generation had worked for is now being rolled back is just — it’s like a slap in the face, honestly,” she added. While organizers held the press conference at the FCNL building, students led a protest a block away, at the Capitol. According to Hana R. O’Looney ’26, the demonstration was entirely student-organized – a change from the original plan to protest alongside seasoned organizers. “They decided to move that indoors and they actually said, ‘No students allowed,’” said Elyse G. Martin-Smith ’25, the political action chair of the Harvard Black Students Association. “It’s really important to us that we have student voices in this work because we are the ones who are directly impacted,” she said. The Asian American Coalition for Education also held an outdoor press conference just minutes before students

Several Harvard student groups attended protests in Washington following the Supreme Court’s ruling. JULIAN J. GIORDANO—CRIMSON PHOTOGRAPHER

Activists rallied for Students for Fair Admissions, the group that brought suit against Harvard. JULIAN J. GIORDANO—CRIMSON PHOTOGRAPHER

Students supporting affirmative action flocked to Washington. CAM E. KETTLES—CRIMSON PHOTOGRAPHER

House of Representatives intern

said. “I think it’s just really sad because if you look around right now you’ll clearly see division. And this is exactly what we’ve been fighting against,” he added. After the SFFA supporters moved away from the street, student organizers led chants and gave speeches. Student speakers said they would remain committed to holding their schools accountable. “We need to put pressure not only on the schools that we are a part of,” Martin-Smith said. “Personally I will be putting a lot of pressure on Harvard. Harvard has so many ways to improve,” she added. “And some of those ways include striking down legacy and donor admissions.” Bastola also said that President-elect Claudine Gay and other top Harvard administrators “can expect continuing conversations on ethnic studies,” “cultural centers” and “the incident that happened at Leverett House last school year” — referencing an April swatting attack at the dormitory. Though Thursday’s decision came as a disappointment to affirmative action proponents, students maintained optimism for a way forward. “There is still a lot of hope because there are other ways that we can evaluate someone’s identity,” said Dian Yu ’26, who also attended the protest. “I do feel like because there’s still room for people to talk about their identities in their essays, interviews, etcetera, it’s still possible to take into account the ways that people can contribute from all walks of life,” she added. “I still think there’s a lot we can do,” she added. After news came down of the decision, Joel O. Crawford ’26, an intern at the House of Representatives, left work to watch the demonstration. Crawford said he was “nervous” to see changes in the student body going forward. “Even now after reading it, there is a lot of ambiguity in how schools can operate and how they are allowed to use race even with affirmative action being overturned,” he said. “It doesn’t stop here. I don’t want universities to think they have a cop-out or an excuse,” Owens said. “They’re still responsible for ensuring that they have diverse populations on michelle.amponsah@thecrimson.com cam.kettles@thecrimson.com

THE HARVARD CRIMSON

IN PHOTOS

JUNE 30, 2023

ANTI-AFFIRMATIVE ACTION PROTESTERS October 2018

HARVARD ADMISSIONS OFFICE March 2014

Protesters hold signs at a pro-Students for Fair Admissions rally in Copley Square in advance of the trial for the lawsuit against Harvard. BRENDAN J. CHAPUIS—CRIMSON PHOTOGRAPHER

Harvard acceptance letters are sealed. SHUNELLA GRACE LUMAS—CRIMSON PHOTOGRAPHER

HARVARD STUDENTS RALLY FOR AFFIRMATIVE ACTION October 2018 Harvard students rally in Cambridge Common, wielding signs in support of the College’s race-conscious admissions policies. ALLISON G. LEE—CRIMSON PHOTOGRAPHER

Affirmative Action Through the Years FROM 2014 TO TODAY. Since Students for Fair Admissions filed suit nearly nine years ago, The Crimson has documented dozens of rallies, protests, press conferences, and court appearances, from Boston to Washington. In this photo essay, take a look at some of the key players and important moments that led to Thursday’s decision. STUDENTS PROTEST IN DC October 2022

EDWARD BLUM ADDRESSES RALLY October 2022

A pro-affirmative action demonstrator holds up a sign at a rally in front of the Supreme Court before oral arguments. JULIAN J. GIORDANO—CRIMSON PHOTOGRAPHER

Edward J. Blum serves as the president of SFFA. JULIAN J. GIORDANO—CRIMSON PHOTOGRAPHER

ANTI-AFFIRMATIVE ACTION DEMONSTRATION AT THE U.S. CAPITOL October 2022 Rallygoers at an anti-affirmative action demonstration at the Supreme Court held signs that read “Stop Anti-Asian Discrimination” and “Support Race Neutral Admissions.”. JULIAN J. GIORDANO—CRIMSON PHOTOGRAPHER

SFFA LAWYERS AT MOAKLEY COURTHOUSE November 2018

HARVARD ADMINISTRATORS ATTEND ORAL ARGUMENTS October 2022

Students for Fair Admissions lawyers pose outside the John Joseph Moakley Courthouse after three weeks of the Harvard admissions trial in 2018. AMY Y. LI—CRIMSON PHOTOGRAPHER

SFFA RALLY ON DECISION DAY June 2023 Eva Guo, a board member of Students for Fair Admissions, speaks at a Washington press conference hours after the Supreme Court ruling. CAM E. KETTLES—CONTRIBUTING PHOTOGRAPHER

From left, former Harvard President Drew Faust, Dean Fitzsimmons ’67, College Dean Rakesh Khurana, and former Corporation Senior Fellow William F. Lee ’72 exit the Court. JULIAN J. GIORDANO—CRIMSON PHOTOGRAPHER

STUDENTS FROM DEFEND DIVERSITY RALLY ON DECISION DAY June 2023 Students organized a demonstration across the street from the Supreme Court to protest the demonstration after the decision was released. JULIAN J. GIORDANO—CRIMSON PHOTOGRAPHER

The Harvard Crimson - Volume CL, No. 16: AFFIRMATIVE ACTION FALLS

Articles inside

Protesters Rally After Court Decision

Supreme Court, President Biden Take Aim at Legacy Admissions

Concurrences Castigate Harvard and UNC

Massachusetts Officials Condemn Ruling

Students Decry End of Affirmative Action

Harvard Faculty Dismayed by Ruling, Citing Impact on Diversity

SFFA Celebrates End of Affirmative Action

Unfinished Business

Harvard Must Give Diversity New Life

The Supreme Court Killed Campus Diversity. What Now?

Admissions Can’t Be a Dirty Word

Harvard Reaffirms Commitment to Diversity, Will Abide by Ruling

Justices Rebuke Ruling in Dissents

Breakdown: The Supreme Court Opinion

Here’s What You Need to Know: Affirmative Action

The Court Killed Campus Diversity. What Now?

Here’s What You Need to Know Here’s What the Supreme Court Said About Affirmative Action

Supreme Court Rules to Strike Down Affirmative Action