With many of the high court’s October term cases having not been decided at this moment, this week I will be taking a look at one of the most personally intriguing cases of this term. In a case that has gotten relatively substantial media coverage over the past several years, Students for Fair Admissions v. President & Fellows of Harvard College is an extremely relevant and thought-provoking case that could forever alter the college admissions process.
Background:
In 2003, a 5-4 decision by the Rehnquist court established a landmark ruling surrounding the liberties college admissions offices could take in dictating their applicants in Grutter v. Bollinger. In the majority opinion of the court written by associate justice Sandra Day O’Connor, the court ruled that race was a very minimal factor in the University of Michigan Law School’s acceptance process and that the college conducted very individualized examinations of each applicant. Thus, affirmative action was held to be constitutional if the university did not strongly factor race in their decision and conducted thorough reviews in this search. The petitioners in this case said that the discrimination. by the law school based on race necessitated a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the First Amendment, however, the court disagreed.
Students for Fair Admissions v. President & Fellows of Harvard College is a direct challenge to the court’s ruling in Grutter.
Petitioner: Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA)
Respondent: Harvard College
SFFA sued Harvard over what is claimed to be “discriminatory practices” favoring white students over Asian-American students. SFFA claims Harvard’s practice of factoring race in admissions decisions is a violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which “prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin.” Harvard has admitted to considering race as one of its factors in admissions decisions, but refers back to the existing precedent established in Grutter that affirms the practice.
At the district and federal (U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit) court levels, both held that Harvard’s practices were consistent to the practices surrounding the case in Grutter.
Following marathon oral arguments given by each side on October 31st, 2022, the fate of this case lies in the hands of the bench.
Hunter’s Thoughts:
Speaking on a pending case, it is very curious to speculate what direction this conservatively-dominated court might lean. This ruling will have substantial implications on the future of affirmative action in the United States and the college admissions process as a whole. Amidst the oral arguments on October 31st, the court’s six conservative justices all seemed to undermine the precedent established by the court to protect affirmative action to a certain extent. Justice Clarence Thomas openly expressed to the respondents “I don’t have a clue (what diversity is)” in reference to the schools’ claiming that they consider diversity as an educational benefit. Indeed, the term “diversity” can certainly be ambiguous and vary from person to person. In this case, it is almost certain that the court’s conservative justices will challenge the ambiguity of that term and the general subjectiveness of the college admissions process as a whole.
While it is in the right of these universities to accept who they please, “what satisfies sufficient diversity” is certainly a difficult question to answer. The conservative justices were all quick to harp on this issue and press the universities to address their interpretation of what diversity is and when their institution deems adequate diversity to have been met.
I do not want to speculate on the decision by the court as it is still in the pre-ruling phase, but it is without a doubt that affirmative action seemingly hangs in the balance. The precedent established by the court in Grutter certainly hangs on by a thread and it will be interesting to determine if the high court views the facts in this case similarly or different. Like Justice Thomas, who notably dissented in Grutter, the decision boils down to whether some of the court’s newer conservative justices believe that affirmative action is a significant problem plaguing college admissions.
I will update in a later blog post when the Court comes to a decision on this case and what implications it has for the future of affirmative action in the United States. But, until that time, the debate surrounding the efficacy of affirmative action and its role in a 21st-century America will continue to encapsulate the American media and many adamant followers of the court’s eventual ruling and superseding of precedent.
Sources:
https://www.oyez.org/cases/2022/20-1199
Students for Fair Admissions Inc. v. President & Fellows of Harvard College
Affirmative action appears in jeopardy after marathon arguments
Image Source: https://news.gallup.com/poll/394103/confidence-supreme-court-sinks-historic-low.aspx
Hi Hunter, this is such an interesting case. In my Living Learning Community, we actually just had an hour-long discussion about the significance and historical implications of this case. I like how you simultaneously analyzed the political, ethical, and legal factors that could contribute to the final decision. I wonder if one of these three types of factors will be most significant in the ultimate judgement? What do you think? I think ultimately it will have to come down to the legal precedents that exist to determine the future of affirmative action.
Affirmative action is certainly something that I have been keeping an eye out for for a couple years now. If I remember correctly, Harvard (as well as the Ivy Leagues) have been accused of discriminatory admissions for years now, by both the Asian American communities as well as the African American communities. Whether or not these claims or true is something that I am not very sure myself and I am intrigued to see where this will go.
As a person from California, I know that many universities have decided to forgo/remove affirmative action from their admission decisions which is why there is now an overwhelming number of Asians and whites in UC schools, compared to the Hispanic and African American communities that live in their area. I cannot say if I agree with the idea of affirmative action or not since I can see both sides of the argument, but I think that we as a society should agree that discrimination in such a large and crucial institution (in this case, tertiary education) is a very serious issue.
This was an interesting overview of the topic and I like how you highlighted why this case is so important and the long-term effect it has had. We just talked about this in one of my classes and I found it interesting how many opinions on the issue came up.
I think that in a perfect world, race should not be considered in college applications and that affirmative action should be eliminated but I believe that in the world we live in it is needed. Without affirmative action, it would be impossible to guarantee a diverse student body, and while schools could make an effort to diversify themselves, many will not due to the financial burden. Schools that have previously gotten rid of affirmative action have seen diversity significantly drop, so without affirmative action many minorities will not be able to attend college. So while I don’t agree with it, I think it highlights the need for continued action to ensure diversity within University.