Affirmative action is perhaps one the biggest buzz phrases in this day and age. It describes “The practice or policy of favoring individuals belonging to groups known to have been discriminated against previously,” according to Oxford Languages. The general idea behind the concept within a university setting is that historically oppressed populations may need more assistance to succeed academically due to the historical challenges they have faced. The policy is highly controversial and has become especially partisan with Democrats generally supporting its implementation, while Republicans oppose it. Affirmative action has been used by colleges as a factor in admissions decisions for years now. While it’s certainly not the only criteria considered, some politicians and activists claim that race plays an unfairly large role in admissions.
Opponents often claim that such policies penalize historically privileged communities and set a double standard that makes it harder for white and Asian applicants to be admitted to colleges and therefore succeed in their careers. These complaints have led to a recent Supreme Court case with significant implications, showing that a large number of people are unhappy with the system.
In 2014, a lawsuit against Harvard University was filed by the organization “Students for Fair Admissions.” The grounds for the suit are that Harvard’s policy of “race-conscious” admissions decisions are immoral and unconstitutional under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which states that “No person in the United States shall, on the ground of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.” The plaintiffs are representing Asian American students rejected from Harvard, who argue that they had the qualifications to be accepted but were denied because of the already high Asian American representation on campus. Additionally, Asian American applicants generally received lower scores on personality metrics used in the admission process as compared to applicants of other races.
Harvard receives federal funding, often in the form of grants, which can amount to millions of dollars. Harvard’s defense rests on the argument that race-conscious admissions are not discriminatory and allow them to foster a more diverse community and create as best an education as possible for their students. For example, California’s public university system did away with race-conscious admissions in 1996 and has since seen a significant drop in the African American and Latinx representation.
This argument has thus far been successful, as over the past six years they have won the case in all major courts. However, the “Students for Fair Admissions” group has continually appealed the case and it is now being heard by the United States Supreme Court. If the current justices decide that Harvard’s policies are unconstitutional, decades of affirmative action precedent would be unwound. This would have major implications for the numerous other institutions that use similar admissions procedures.
In addition, the Harvard case is not the only one being heard by the court. A very similar suit, filed by the same organization, is targeting the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill’s (UNC) race-conscious admissions. Both the Harvard and UNC cases were going to be brought to the Supreme Court at the same time. However, the cases were split due to Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson’s decision to not participate in the Harvard case because she believed it would be a conflict of interest due to her attendance at Harvard for undergraduate studies and law school, as well as a position on the Harvard Board of Overseers that she held for six years. Although many of the other justices have similar connections, none have stepped aside. The cases were thus split to allow Justice Jackson to participate in the UNC case.
The current Supreme Court has a conservative majority and this could very easily influence the outcome of both cases. Especially after the recusal of Jackson who is liberal by comparison, the odds seem stacked against Harvard, and possibly UNC as well. Both decisions will have huge ramifications for the future of college admissions and the racial diversity of campuses. Whether or not the “Students for Fair Admissions” and the Asian American students they represent will win is now up to the whims of several justices who will set precedent regardless of their ruling.