WASHINGTON — The future of affirmative action in higher education will be at issue in a pair of cases that will be debated in the Supreme Court on Monday challenging race-conscious admissions programs at Harvard. and the University of North Carolina.
Courts have repeatedly upheld similar programs, most recently in 2016, stating that educational diversity is a compelling concern justifies the inclusion of race as a factor in many admissions decisions. But the court is currently dominated by a majority of six conservative members, one who is most likely to view the challenged shows with skepticism, imposing more than 40 years of precedent.
If there was any doubt that the court was willing to ignore prominent precedents, it was dropped in June when the judges overturned Roe v. WadeThe 1973 decision established the constitutional right to abortion.
When the court agreed in January to hear two cases of affirmative action, it reinforced them and said it would listen to an hour of debate to review them. The court separated the cases after the arrival of Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson in June, who reused herself from the Harvard case for her service at one of the university’s governing bodies. .
The two cases are not the same. As a public university, UNC is bound by both the equal protection clause of the Constitution and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prevents discrimination by federal money-receiving institutions. Harvard, a private institution, abides by statute only.
In the North Carolina case, the plaintiffs say the university discriminated against white and Asian applicants by favoring those who were black, Hispanic, and Native American. The university responded that its admissions policies promoted diversity in education and were legal under longstanding Supreme Court precedents.
Understanding the New Term of the Supreme Court
The lawsuit against Harvard has one more element, accusing the university Discrimination against Asian American students by using a subjective criterion to measure traits such as likability, courage, and kindness, and by creating an effective ceiling for them in admissions.
Harvard denies that it discriminates against Asian-American applicants. Overall, it says racially conscious admissions policies are legal.
A ruling that restricts or prohibits the use of race as a consideration in admissions will fundamentally reshape higher education. It would reduce the number of Black and Latino students at many select colleges and universities, allowing more Asian-American and white students to be admitted instead.
Both cases were brought up by Students for Fair Admissions, a group formed by Edward BlumA legal activist who has organized numerous lawsuits challenging racially conscious admissions policies and suffrage laws, some of which have reached the Supreme Court.
In 2016, the Supreme Court upheld the admissions program at the University of Texas at Austin, arguing that officials there may continue to see race as a factor in ensuring a diverse student body. Votes are 4 to 3. (Justice Antonin Scalia is dead months ago, and Justice Elena Kagan was re-used.)
Writing for the majority, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy said that courts must provide universities with significant but not complete delay in rolling out their admissions programs.
He was joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen G. Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor. In an interview Not long after the Texas case was decided, Justice Ginsburg said they would endure.
“I don’t expect that we’ll see another case of affirmative action,” Justice Ginsburg said, “at least in the education sector.”
Six years later, only one member of the majority in the Texas case, Justice Sotomayor, is still on the court. Justice Kennedy is retired in 2018 and was replaced by Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh; Justice Ginsburg is dead in 2020 and was replaced by Justice Amy Coney Barrett; and Retired Justice Breyer this year and was replaced by Justice Jackson.
The Texas decision has basically reaffirmed Grutter sues Bollinger, a 2003 decision in which the Supreme Court upheld comprehensive enrollment programs, stating that race can be considered as one of many factors for achieving diversity in education. Writing for the majority in that case, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor said she expected that “25 years from now, the use of racial preferences will no longer be necessary.”
Court decisions in two new cases – Fair Admissions Students v. Harvard, No. 20-1199 and Fair Admissions Students v. University of North Carolina, No. 21-707 – are likely to land in June , before Justice. O’Connor’s deadline.
