The affirmation action case against Harvard refers to the landmark lawsuit Students for Fair Admissions, Inc.1 v. President and Fellows of Harvard College.2 This case, alongside a companion case against the University of North Carolina, resulted in a significant Supreme Court decision on June 29, 2023, effectively striking down race-based affirmative action in college admissions.3 Here's a breakdown of the case and its outcome:
Background:
- Plaintiff: Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA), an organization led by Edward Blum, sued Harvard University in 2014, alleging that Harvard's undergraduate admissions practices discriminated against Asian American applicants (and white applicants) in violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.4 Title VI prohibits discrimination based on race, color, or national origin in programs5 receiving federal financial assistance.67
- Harvard's Position: Harvard argued that its admissions policy, which considered race as one factor among many in a holistic review of each applicant, was consistent with decades of Supreme Court precedent, including Grutter v. Bollinger (2003), which had upheld the limited use of race to achieve the educational benefits of diversity.8
- Lower Court Rulings: Both the U.S. District Court and the First Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of Harvard, finding that its limited consideration of race did not constitute discrimination and complied with existing Supreme Court precedent.
The Supreme Court Decision:
- Consolidated Cases: The Supreme Court heard the Harvard case alongside Students for Fair Admissions v. University of North Carolina.9
- Ruling: In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court held that the race-conscious admissions programs at both Harvard and UNC violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.10 Chief Justice John Roberts authored the majority opinion.11
- Key Arguments of the Majority:
- The Court found that the universities' asserted interests in diversity were not "sufficiently measurable or coherent" to withstand strict scrutiny, the highest level of judicial review applied to racial classifications.12
- The programs failed to articulate a clear connection between the means used (considering race) and the goals pursued.
- The Court concluded that the use of racial classifications in admissions led to stereotyping and lacked a logical endpoint, which is required for such policies to be constitutional.13
- Impact: The decision effectively overturned Grutter v. Bollinger and Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978) to the extent they permitted race to be a factor in college admissions.
- Caveat: The Court did state that universities could still consider "an applicant's discussion of how race affected his or her life, be it through discrimination, inspiration,14 or otherwise," as long as it's tied to a quality of character or unique contribution the applicant can make.15 However, this cannot be used as a proxy for race-based admissions.
Consequences and Implications:
- End of Race-Based Admissions: Colleges and universities receiving federal funds are now prohibited from using race as a specific factor in their admissions decisions.16
- Shifts in Enrollment: Early data suggests declines in Black, Hispanic, and Indigenous student representation at some selective institutions following the ruling.
- New Strategies for Diversity: Universities are exploring race-neutral approaches to achieve diversity, such as increasing socioeconomic diversity, focusing on applicants' essays about their life experiences (including those related to race), and expanding outreach programs.17
- Ongoing Debate: The decision has reignited debates about affirmative action, equity, and access to higher education, with ongoing discussions about its broader implications for other areas like employment.18
