The Supreme Court ruled that race-conscious admission policies of Harvard College and the University of North Carolina violate the Constitution, effectively ending affirmative action in higher education. The decision was made with a 6-3 majority in the University of North Carolina case and a 6-2 majority in the Harvard dispute. Chief Justice John Roberts authored the majority opinion, stating that the programs lacked measurable objectives, employed race negatively, involved racial stereotyping, and lacked meaningful endpoints. However, the ruling still allows universities to consider an applicant’s discussion of how race affected their life. The decision is seen as a significant shift in precedent and was made by the court’s conservative majority.
Highlights of Supreme Court College Admissions:
- The Supreme Court ruled that race-conscious admission policies at Harvard and the University of North Carolina are unconstitutional, ending affirmative action in higher education.
- Chief Justice John Roberts authored the majority opinion, stating that the programs lacked measurable objectives and involved racial stereotyping.
- Universities can still consider an applicant’s discussion of how race affected their life.
- The decision was made by the court’s conservative majority and upends past Supreme Court decisions.
- The ruling is expected to have a significant impact on the representation of Black and Hispanic students at highly competitive schools.
- President Biden condemned the decision and emphasized the importance of racial diversity in colleges and the nation.
- Affirmative action refers to policies aimed at increasing diversity through the consideration of race, and it has been controversial since its inception in the 1960s.
- The cases involved allegations of discrimination against Asian-American applicants.
- The court’s decision is seen as a departure from previous rulings and reflects the influence of former President Donald Trump’s appointed justices.
- Harvard and UNC expressed their commitment to diversity and stated their intention to comply with the ruling while preserving their values.
