Supreme Court blocks use of affirmative action at Harvard, UNC in blow to diversity efforts
WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court on Thursday struck down affirmative action admissions policies used by Harvard College and the University of North Carolina to diversify their campuses, a decision with enormous consequences not only for higher education but also the American workplace.
In one of its most closely watched cases this year, the court ruled along ideological lines that the way the two nationally recognized colleges approached race violated the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. The decision drew a sharp rebuke from the court's liberal wing, who said it rolled "decades of precedent and momentous progress."
Chief Justice John Roberts, long a skeptic of race-based policies, wrote that too many universities "have concluded, wrongly, that the touchstone of an individual’s identity is not challenges bested, skills built, or lessons learned but the color of their skin." The nation's constitutional history, he wrote, "does not tolerate that choice."
Case tracker: Race, religion and debt. Here are the biggest cases pending at the Supreme Court
The vote was 6-3 in the University of North Carolina case, with the court's conservative wing lining up behind Roberts. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson recused herself from the Harvard case, so that vote was 6-2.
Though the outcome was expected, the decision will have wide reverberations in a nation that continues to wrestle with a fraught history with race. The decision appeared to leave some room for colleges to consider race in less systematic ways though it will likely take years and more litigation to test the boundaries of those limits.
Biden: 'This is not a normal court'
President Joe Biden slammed the decision, asserting that the ruling "walked away from decades of precedent."
"This is not a normal court," the president said.
Biden added that he "strongly, strongly" disagrees with the decision. He offered his own guidance to colleges, telling institutions they should not abandon their commitment to ensure diversity, and proposed new standards where colleges take into account adversities a student has overcome.
"We cannot let this decision be the last word," he said.
What the Supreme Court said about affirmative action
Roberts wrote that the entire point of the equal protection clause is that treating someone differently because of their skin color "is not like treating them differently because they are from a city or from a suburb, or because they play the violin poorly or well."
Roberts wrote that both admissions policies lacked "sufficiently focused and measurable objectives" that warranted considering race. However, in an important caveat, he left open the idea that schools could consider a candidate's discussion of how race affected their life, such as through discrimination.
But, Roberts warned, "universities may not simply establish through application essays or other means the regime we hold unlawful today."
Sotomayor, liberals pen scorching dissent
In a scathing dissent joined by the court's two other liberals, Sotomayor said the decision rolled back "decades of precedent and momentous progress."
The court, she wrote, "cements a superficial rule of colorblindness as a constitutional principle in an endemically segregated society where race has always mattered and continues to matter."
Jackson said the decision "blinks" at history and reality.
"Gulf-sized race-based gaps exist with respect to the health, wealth, and well-being of American citizens," Jackson wrote. "They were created in the distant past, but have indisputably been passed down to the present day through the generations."
What's the potential impact of the Supreme Court decisions?
Many universities have already stopped using race in admissions. Eight states – including Michigan and California – already ban the consideration of race in higher education. And even before the decision was handed down, some schools moved to looking at other ways to diversity their campuses, such as by considering economic factors.
Kevin Guskiewicz, UNC's chancellor, said that the university “remains firmly committed to bringing together talented students with different perspectives and life experiences and continues to make an affordable, high-quality education accessible to the people of North Carolina and beyond. While not the outcome we hoped for, we will carefully review the Supreme Court’s decision and take any steps necessary to comply with the law.”
"Like any policy, affirmative action wasn’t perfect," former President Barack Obama said in a statement. "But it allowed generations of students like Michelle and me to prove we belonged. Now it’s up to all of us to give young people the opportunities they deserve ? and help students everywhere benefit from new perspectives."
Northwestern law professor Paul Anthony Gowder described the ruling as "pretty narrow." Schools can still make sure they are recruiting applicants from diverse backgrounds and they can create environments that are welcoming to people from non-majority backgrounds, he said. The Supreme Court has also not precluded universities from seeking diversity by focusing on socioeconomic status or geographic factors, he said.
“It has not said that it's illegal for universities to do things like try to ensure that they have a diverse and equitable applicant pool,” Gowder said.
Harvard officials focused on the line in the opinion that said colleges could still consider how race affected a candidate's life. "We will certainly comply with the court's decision," the university said in a statement signed by its president, Lawrence Bacow, and other administrators.
"We write today to reaffirm the fundamental principle that deep and transformative teaching, learning, and research depend upon a community comprising people of many backgrounds, perspectives, and lived experiences," the statement read.
How did the affirmative action case reach the Supreme Court?
Harvard, the nation's oldest private college, and the University of North Carolina, which lays claim to being its oldest public college, acknowledged considering race as one of many factors in determining admissions, an approach consistent with Supreme Court precedent. But that 2003 decision was crafted by a different Supreme Court that included swing-vote justices who often reached conclusions through compromise.
Roberts did not explicitly overturn that precedent in the opinion, but Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in a concurring opinion that the earlier precedent, "is, for all intents and purposes, overruled."
Impact: Ahead of Supreme Court affirmative action case ruling: Do Harvard, UNC discriminate?
The admissions cases were part of a broader conservative push to reimagine the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. Adopted after the Civil War, the amendment was intended to protect the rights of former slaves who were subjected to discriminatory state laws, particularly in the South. The wider debate – forged in the context of voting, housing, criminal justice and other areas – is whether the clause requires colorblind policies or whether, to stem discrimination, race may be considered.
Perhaps sensing a shifting landscape on the court, two lawsuits filed by Students for Fair Admissions, an anti-affirmative action group founded by conservative legal strategist Edward Blum, asked the justices to decide whether the 2003 precedent should be overruled. Years in the making, the litigation arrived as the nation continued to wrestle with the fallout from the decision last year to overturn Roe v. Wade.
“The opinion issued today by the United States Supreme Court marks the beginning of the restoration of the color-blind legal covenant that binds together our multiracial, multiethnic nation," Blum said in Washington.
Workforce: Supreme Court just reversed affirmative action. What that means for workplace diversity.
The Boston-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit ruled in 2020 that Harvard permissibly used race under the 2003 precedent. A U.S. District Court in North Carolina ruled in favor of UNC.
The cases are Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard and Students for Fair Admissions v. UNC.
Contributing: Rachel Looker, Jessica Guynn, Miles J. Herszenhorn, Chris Quintana
This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Supreme Court blocks affirmative action in Harvard, UNC admissions