Author: Swosti Singh Napit, Symbiosis Law School, Pune
To the point
The Supreme Court found that Harvard and UNC broke the Equal Protection Clause and Title VI when using race in their admissions, and initiated affirmative action for college admissions. According to a 6-3 verdict, the Court believed that university programs based on race did not meet strict scrutiny since they used imprecise ideas about diversity and included racial generalizations, while making it harder for Asian-Americans to be accepted. In the majority opinion, Chief Justice Roberts decided that although students can talk about race in their essays, race should not be considered in the decision to admit them to college. Several justices in dissent said that the ruling wages war on efforts for diversity, as Justice Sotomayor reminded the Court that it “ignores the realities of America.” By this decision, the court has challenged the past use of race for creating diversity at universities, which has caused arguments about whether its aim is real equality or continues to support unequal treatment in the education system.
Abstract
The case challenged Harvard and UNC’s admission decisions to encourage diversity. The Supreme Court found that the policies of these universities went against the principle of equal protection in the Constitution and anti-discrimination laws. Most of the reviewers found that the schools let diversity goals be too general, used unfair practices against Asian-American applicants, and neglected to set a definite timeline, which did not hold up to a strict legal check. Although students can talk about race in their essays, colleges cannot provide special treatment just because of a person’s race. Some enthusiastically considered it to be a step forward for those ignorant of race, while others considered it to be indifferent to existing race problems and claimed it would lessen campus diversity. It means that the program of affirmative action used in college admissions will no longer continue.
Use of Legal Jargon
The Supreme Court referred to numerous legal jargon terms that most people find hard to comprehend. These terms are referred to as legal jargon and consist of such phrases as the Equal Protection Clause, Title VI, and Strict Scrutiny.
The Equal Protection Clause is a provision of the U.S. Constitution 14th Amendment. It implies that the government should treat everybody equally regardless of their race, sex, and origin. However, rather than stating that in a straightforward manner, the decisions made by the courts refer to the official legal expression of the Equal Protection Clause, which may seem far and unfamiliar.
Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This legislation states that any school or other organizations receiving federal funds are prohibited from discriminating on the grounds of race. But once more, rather than simply stating, “no racial discrimination regarding the federal money,” the courts use the legal title, which is unfamiliar and perhaps unintelligible to many people, namely, Title VI.
This was possibly the most perplexing term employed in the case of Strict Scrutiny. That sounds like a complex test–and it is. This is to say that the court should scrutinize closely a law or a policy that makes a decision based on race. The court poses two questions: Does it have a very important reason to use race? And is there no other means to achieve that end? In the event that the answer to both is in the affirmative, then the policy may remain. In the Harvard/UNC case, however, the Court found that the reason (diversity) was too amorphous, and the means was not meticulous enough.
The Proof
In the case of Students for Fair Admissions v. President and Fellows of Harvard College, admissions practices in colleges were looked at closely with regard to the use of race. The Court examined statistics and policies used at Harvard, and it was discovered that race had a definite influence on who was accepted. The records indicated that the Asian American students were at times assigned lower personal scores and were less likely to be admitted as compared to other races with equal or lower academic records. This was an indication that not all applicants were being handled equally during the admissions process. The Court also decided that Harvard and UNC were unable to articulate clearly how their consideration of race contributed to the attainment of quantifiable diversity objectives. Rather, the objectives lacked specificity with no end in mind. Due to this fact, the Court decided that the schools did not comply with demanding legal requirements when race is considered in making decisions. This was evidence that the affirmative action plans were not fair and did contravene the promise of the Constitution of equal protection under the law.
Case Laws
Regents of the University of California v. Bakke
The Court invalidated in its ruling the use of rigid racial quotas in college admissions but upheld that race could be used as a plus factor to achieve diversity. This ruling indicated that, though the attainment of diversity is an acceptable aim, schools cannot utilize stable figures determined by race.
Grutter v. Bollinger
The Court struck down racial preferences in admissions but upheld that the limited use of race to achieve diversity could be upheld if it was “narrowly tailored” and had an end, which in this case was projected to be 25 years. Although Harvard and UNC had used this precedent, the 2023 decision announced that the 25-year time had run its course, and race-based admissions could no longer be used.
Gratz v. Bollinger
The Court held that the point-based system of affirmative action implemented by the University of Michigan was invalid because it was too mechanical and lacked flexibility. The emphasis in its judgment is that race-conscious policies need to survive strict scrutiny and be narrowly tailored, establishing a contrast to the looser standard affirmed in Grutter v. Bollinger.
Fisher v. University of Texas
The Court affirmed the University of Texas at Austin’s race-conscious admissions program under the case Grutter but issued rules making it more stringent by tightening the narrow-tailoring standard. The decision was an indication of increasing doubts by the Court on the use of diversity to support race-based admissions.
Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle
In K12 education, the Court prohibited race-based school assignments, terming them to be racial balancing, which was declared unconstitutional. Strict scrutiny was applied to education policy in this judgment, and it partially resembles the subsequent rejection of race-based admissions by the Court in the Harvard/UNC case.
Conclusion
The decision of the Supreme Court in the case against Harvard indicates a stringent shift towards race-neutral admissions, which demands that schools evaluate students on their personal merit and individual experience instead of focusing on their racial background. The ruling changes the interpretation of equality in the education sector, focusing on a system where all people play by the same rules. It puts the institutions to the test to ensure that they can dig deeper into the journey, talents, and personality of every applicant and not rely on race as a determinant.
Nevertheless, the shift also raises critical questions concerning the way diverse and inclusive learning environments should be sustained. By not taking race into direct consideration, the schools might be unable to represent the complete variety of backgrounds that exist in society. There are still numerous students who experience the impediments related to systemic inequality and being oblivious to those facts might increase the gaps instead of reducing them. Now colleges will be forced to go back to essays, life stories, and other holistic means to make sure that all voices are equally represented in the classroom.
FAQS
What is affirmative action in college admissions?
Affirmative action are the policies which take racial or ethnic factors into account to achieve diversity and overcome past discrimination in making admissions decisions.
How was the Equal Protection Clause involved in this case?
The Court applied the Equal Protection Clause to assess the race-based admissions at Harvard and whether the law was fair to all the applicants.
Is race totally out of the equation in admissions in colleges after this ruling?
No, the ruling does not allow the use of race as a direct factor, however, the colleges are allowed to take into consideration how the personal experiences of the student, including the negative experiences which the student had due to his or her race, impact his or her life.
What is the meaning of strict scrutiny in this case?
Strict scrutiny is a judicial test that obligates the government to have a very significant purpose of using race, and it must do so in the least harmful manner.
What will be the effect of this ruling on college diversity?
Colleges will be less able to keep racial diversity, and will have to devise new ways of engineering diverse student populations without referring explicitly to race.
