The recent ruling by the Supreme Court declaring the race-conscious admissions programs at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and Harvard University as unconstitutional marks a significant departure from decades of precedent on the use of race in college admissions. Not only does this decision have profound implications for how the country interprets the Fourteenth Amendment’s promise of equal protection under the law, but its impact on diversity in higher education remains uncertain.
Chief Justice John Roberts, in a comprehensive 40-page opinion, argues that these institutions violated the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by failing to adhere to the court’s narrow restrictions on the use of race. Roberts contends that these admissions programs effectively perpetuate stereotypes and assume that students of a specific race think alike solely based on their race. Furthermore, the Court has previously suggested that these programs require a sunset date and lack a logical endpoint.
However, it’s important to note that Roberts stops short of completely banning the consideration of race in admissions programs. He allows institutions to assess how race has influenced an applicant’s life on a case-by-case basis. Additionally, he acknowledges that military academies may continue to operate race-conscious systems due to potentially distinct interests that these institutions present.
From a legal standpoint, this ruling represents a landmark moment. It essentially flips the purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment, which was originally designed to prevent discrimination against Black Americans in the aftermath of the Civil War, into a guarantor of a “race-neutral” approach. Previously, this amendment had been utilized to defend the rights of marginalized groups in areas such as voting and employment. The decision in this case parallels Justice John Marshall Harlan’s dissent in Plessy v. Ferguson, stating that our Constitution is color-blind and does not tolerate divisions among citizens. This outcome was surprisingly predicted by Justice Thurgood Marshall four decades ago, although he highlighted the irony of adopting a color-blind approach to university admissions in light of historical context.
The concept of affirmative action first emerged in 1961 when President John F. Kennedy issued an executive order aimed at combating discrimination in the federal government and fostering diversity in the workforce. Shortly after, colleges began implementing affirmative action programs to address the history of segregation and inequity in the education system. These programs aimed to rectify the unequal funding of Black and white students and colleges across the nation.
However, affirmative action faced a significant setback in the 1970s when a Supreme Court case limited its scope. Allan Bakke, a white medical school applicant to UC Davis, challenged an admissions program that reserved seats for minority students. The Court, in a compromise opinion by Justice Lewis Powell, ruled that while race could be considered to diversify the student body, it should not be used to remedy past discrimination. Chief Justice Roberts’ opinion in this recent case effectively dismantles Powell’s diversity rationale, asserting that it grants universities too much discretion without clear standards.
Following this ruling, institutions must grapple with the practical implications. We can look to examples of what happens when race-conscious admissions programs are eliminated. Michigan experienced a significant decline in Black enrollment after a ban on affirmative action, as did California. In the latter case, it not only resulted in decreased enrollment for underrepresented groups but also hindered their graduation rates, according to education-policy researcher Kevin Carey.
Moreover, a 2020 report from the Education Trust revealed that Black enrollment was already declining at the nation’s most selective public colleges, which are the very institutions that often need to consider race in admissions due to high rejection rates. This decision is poised to exacerbate existing inequalities. While private institutions like Harvard and Yale may have the resources to allow admissions officers more time for review, there will still be uncertainty given the inherent haziness surrounding selective admissions that can lead to legal challenges.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, in her dissenting opinion, highlights the irony of basing this decision on the equal protection clause. She argues that although the majority claims to embrace colorblindness through legal fiat, this does not eliminate the relevance of race in daily life.
In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s ruling on race-conscious admissions programs marks a momentous shift in interpretation and implementation. The impact of this decision extends beyond the immediate implications for university admissions, as it redefines the role of the Fourteenth Amendment and raises questions about diversity in higher education.
Denial of responsibility! VigourTimes is an automatic aggregator of Global media. In each content, the hyperlink to the primary source is specified. All trademarks belong to their rightful owners, and all materials to their authors. For any complaint, please reach us at – [email protected]. We will take necessary action within 24 hours.
