Race-Based Admissions At Harvard Struck Down By Supreme Court

MASSACHUSETTS — The U.S. Supreme Court Thursday ended race-conscious affirmative action policies similar to those used for decades by some colleges and universities to increase student diversity.

In a 6-3 decision, the court held that race-conscious admissions programs at Harvard and the University of North Carolina violate the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment, effectively eliminating the ability of colleges and universities to use affirmative action to achieve a racially diverse student body.

The majority opinion by Chief Justice John Roberts said the court has "permitted race-based admissions only within the confines of narrow restrictions. University programs must comply with strict scrutiny, they may never use race as a stereotype or negative, and — at some point — they must end."

In a statement published in response to the decision, Harvard University wrote, in part, that it "[reaffirms] the fundamental principle that deep and transformative teaching, learning, and research depend upon a community comprising people of many backgrounds, perspectives, and lived experiences."

"That principle is as true and important today as it was yesterday. So too are the abiding values that have enabled us—and every great educational institution—to pursue the high calling of educating creative thinkers and bold leaders, of deepening human knowledge, and of promoting progress, justice, and human flourishing," the statement continued.

Education and government officials from Massachusetts responded to the decision Thursday swiftly. In a letter, signed by officials ranging from Gov. Maura Healey to Senate President Karen Spilka to the presidents of dozens of private and public Massachusetts colleges, education leaders said they will remain committed to diversity — although did not say if the state would pursue an alternative to affirmative action.

"Today’s Supreme Court decision overturns decades of settled law. In the Commonwealth, our values and our commitment to progress and continued representation in education remain unshakable," the letter said. "We will continue to break down barriers to higher education so that all students see themselves represented in both our public and private campus communities. Massachusetts, the home of the first public school and first university, will lead the way in championing access, equity, and inclusion in education."

Other officials, including Building Back Together Interim Executive Director Mayra Macías, also condemned the decision.

“As a first-generation college student and Latina whose life trajectory was forever changed by access to higher education at Yale, today’s Supreme Court decision is devastating," Macías said. "It is a step back for diversity, equity, and our country. Conservatives on the Court overturned nearly 50 years of precedent, despite a substantial record demonstrating the lawfulness of affirmative action in higher education."

Meanwhile, some political leaders—including Mike Pence, who served as the 48th vice president of the United States from 2017 to 2021 under President Donald Trump and is running for president in 2024—expressed their approval of the decision.

“There is no place for discrimination based on race in the United States, and I am pleased that the Supreme Court has put an end to this egregious violation of civil and constitutional rights in admissions processes, which only served to perpetuate racism," Pence said in a public statement. "I am honored to have played a role in appointing three of the Justices that ensured today’s welcomed decision, and as President I will continue to appoint judges who will strictly apply the law rather than twisting it to serve woke and progressive ends.”

The two separate but similar cases before the court — Students for Fair Admissions v. University of North Carolina and Students for Fair Admissions v. President and Fellows of Harvard College — were brought by a conservative activist group that argues the Constitution forbids the use of race-conscious admissions policies.

The plaintiffs asked the justices to strike down the landmark 1978 ruling in Regents of the University of California v. Bakke that upheld schools’ use of race-conscious admissions policies, and Grutter v. Bollinger, a 2003 case affirming it. Writing for the majority in that case, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor said the University of Michigan Law School’s use of a race-conscious admissions program did not unduly harm nonminority candidates.

Specifically, the plaintiffs argue Harvard’s policy violates Title VI of the Civil Rights Act prohibiting institutions that receive federal funding from discriminating based on race. Because of the policies, they argued, Asian American students were less likely to be admitted to Harvard than similarly qualified white, Black or Hispanic applicants.

The group argued the University of North Carolina violated the 14th Amendment’s equal protections clause, which bars racial discrimination by government entities, by considering race when it’s not necessary to do so to achieve a racially diverse student body.

In the North Carolina case, lawyer Patrick Strawbridge told the justices “racial classifications are wrong,” as established in Brown v. Board of Education, saying the Supreme Court’s 1954 landmark ruling striking down racial segregation in public schools.

Students for Fair Admissions, the group that brought the lawsuits against Harvard and the University of North Carolina, is headed by Edward Blum, a conservative legal strategist who has spent years fighting affirmative action.

In a statement after the court agreed to hear the case, Blum said both Harvard and the University of North Carolina “have racially gerrymandered their freshman classes in order to achieve prescribed racial quotas.”

“Every college applicant should be judged as a unique individual, not as some representative of a racial or ethnic group,” he said at the time.

Blum also bankrolled a 2016 Supreme Court case Fisher v. University of Texas, in which a white student said she had been denied admission to the school because of her race. The court narrowly upheld race-conscious admissions policy in that case, but warned that not all affirmative action policies would pass constitutional muster.

Many predominantly white colleges and universities developed affirmative action plans in the 1960s and 1970s as they struggled to attract people from historically disadvantaged and underrepresented communities. Polices were also created to promote greater inclusion of women.

Since the late 1970s, the Supreme Court has three times upheld affirmative action on the grounds that institutions have a compelling interest to address past discrimination that shut nonwhite students out of higher learning. Justices have also agreed with arguments that more diverse student bodies promoted cross-racial understanding.

Race is among a confluence of admissions standards, including grades, test scores and extracurricular activities, but institutions say it can be a deciding factor when considering large numbers of equally qualified students for a limited number of spots.

About a quarter of schools said in a 2019 National Association of College Admission Counseling survey said race had a “considerable” or “moderate” influence on admissions, while nearly 60 percent said race had no influence at all.

Nine states — Arizona, California, Florida, Idaho, Michigan, Nebraska, New Hampshire, Oklahoma and Washington — have banned race-based admissions policies at public colleges and universities.

Affirmative action hasn’t cured inequities in education, Sarah Hinger senior staff attorney in the Racial Justice Program at the American Civil Liberties Union, recently told EducationWeek, “but it has been an important tool in an effort to at least partially recognize the substantial inequities that exist and that people are positioned with when applying to colleges, and on college campuses.”

U.S. Sen. Ed Markey, D-Massachusetts, said Thursday's ruling is another example of an "extremist" shift on the Supreme Court, which has three justices appointed by former president Donald Trump and one by President Joe Biden.

"The far-right, extremist majority on the Supreme Court just struck down affirmative action—a critical tool for colleges and universities to advance racial justice, equity, and diversity across the United States," Markey said in a tweet.

The Associated Press contributed reporting.