The Case: News
Updates and voices on racial preferences in admissions, affirmative action, and the case.
For Background and Materials, See The Case: Key Documents and Background
The Decision
HELD: Harvard’s and UNC’s admissions programs violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
“…The Harvard and UNC admissions programs cannot be reconciled with the guarantees of the Equal Protection Clause. Both programs lack sufficiently focused and measurable objectives warranting the use of race, unavoidably employ race in a negative manner, involve racial stereotyping, and lack meaningful end points. We have never permitted admissions programs to work in that way, and we will not do so today.
At the same time, as all parties agree, nothing in this opinion should be construed as prohibiting universities from considering an applicant’s discussion of how race affected his or her life, be it through discrimination, inspiration, or otherwise…
[However], universities may not simply establish through application essays or other means the regime we hold unlawful today… In other words, the student must be treated based on his or her experiences as an individual not on the basis of race.
Many universities have for too long done just the opposite. And in doing so, they 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.
Our constitutional history does not tolerate that choice.”
Supreme Court Could End Affirmative Action Any Day: Here’s What To Expect
A recap of the cases and what to expect with further reading provided.
Harvard has argued that “taking race out of its admissions process would reduce enrollment of Black students at the school from 14% to 6% of its student body, and Hispanic enrollment from 14% to 9%. It has also predicted the ruling will result in a 14% drop in students studying the humanities.”
Growing Diversity in US Weakens Case for Affirmative Action
Affirmative action becomes harder to defend when it entails discrimination against a variety of racial and ethnic minority groups.
After Affirmative Action, Meritocracy?
“In cases against Harvard and the University of North Carolina, the U.S. Supreme Court appears poised to end the use of race in college admissions. But when the decisions come down, colleges will not merely drop racial preferences and otherwise continue the admissions practices that they had before.”
Thoughts on upcoming Supreme Court decisions that may affect admissions | MIT Office of the President
A letter from MIT’s president on the upcoming SCOTUS decision on race-conscious admissions.
The Empire of Racial Preferences Strikes Back
Even if the Supreme Court rules against using race in college admissions, some schools plan to ignore it. Harvard’s Laurence Tribe weighs in.
As Supreme Court considers affirmative action, colleges see few other ways to diversity goals
As an alternative to affirmative action, colleges from California to Florida have tried a range of strategies to achieve the diversity they say is essential to their campuses…after years of experimentation…there’s no clear solution.
Proposed Mass. Bill Seeks to End Legacy and Donor Preferences in Higher Ed Admissions
A proposed bill would assess a fee to universities with admissions processes that consider legacy status, donor relationships, or have an early decision plan. The proposed bill comes ahead of the SCOTUS ruling on affirmative action. One of the co-sponsors describes the upcoming SCOTUS decision as “an ‘opportunity’ for Harvard to ‘think creatively’ about equity in their admissions practices.”
Race and State
The emerging racial state promises no real progress for most minorities while deepening ethnic divides and undermining the basis for democratic self-rule.
Brown considering ‘identity’ application essays in preparation for potential end of affirmative action
On March 15th, 2023, Brown’s University Administrators said that in anticipating the SCOTUS ruling on affirmative action, it is considering changing its supplemental essay questions. “Any new questions would serve to offer applicants opportunities to share more information about their identity ‘to try to get a better sense of the lived experiences of discrimination or overcoming hardship that our students may face,’ Associate Provost for Enrollment Logan Powell said.”
Unpopular, Polarizing, and Ineffective
A long-form piece on affirmative action by Jason Riley, claiming it is unpopular, divisive and harmful. “When it comes to skepticism of affirmative-action policies, the issue isn’t whether today’s college students are ‘left-wing activists who aren’t in touch with the real world’ but rather whether that description better applies to New York Times journalists and other liberal elites… [they] tell blacks that there is no shame in racial favoritism—but who among us longs to be that diversity hire or token minority on campus?”
The Morality of Affirmative Action is Complicated; Its Legality, Less So
A clear view of affirmative action, stripping away arguments over what is fair or just, going straight to the law — “Does affirmative action discriminate on the basis of race and deny some students access to these universities? Quite clearly. Therefore, affirmative action is plainly unlawful, and if the Supreme Court considers the issue unblinded by ideology, the justices will and should end its use… The Civil Rights Act does not explicitly protect blacks, or Hispanics, or Asians, but all individuals from racial discrimination.”
Stanford’s Racial Engineering
A clinical look at Stanford’s numbers—the data on discrimination is hard to ignore. An “exploration of Stanford’s enrollment statistics… reveals that the university has seemingly taken part in racial engineering over the past several years—practically exchanging white applicants for Asian applicants while holding other racial group enrollment rates constant.”
Legal Experts Discuss Race-Conscious Admissions and Equal Protection After SFFA v. Harvard at HLS Event
In a March 2023 discussion hosted by the Harvard Federalist Society, panelists discussed the SFFA v Harvard case and whether Harvard will prevail.
If Affirmative Action Ends, College Admissions May Be Changed Forever
Schools may need to rethink everything, including recruitment, scholarships, standardized testing and alumni preferences.
Glenn Loury: Affirmative Distraction
In this powerful piece, FAIR Advisor Glenn Loury (AM 82) argues that “Using different standards when judging the fitness of blacks…is inconsistent with the goal of racial equality. It invites us to become liars… It invites us to look the other way. It’s not equality; it’s the opposite of equality… Don’t patronize my people, inflict on us the consequences of a soft bigotry of low expectations, or presume that we’re not capable.”
Who Represents Asian-Americans?
The grassroots Asian American Coalition for Education, comprising more than 300 organizations committed to standing up against racial preferences, challenges the mainstream narrative. Their very existence belies how the “mainstream media has portrayed any Asian-American who supports Students for Fair Admissions’ lawsuits against Harvard and the University of North Carolina as part of a ‘vocal minority’ of confused immigrants, one that doesn’t understand affirmative action or how higher-education admissions work in the U.S.”
Harvard Law Professor Asks Judge to Unseal Sidebars from 2018 Admissions Trial
Harvard Professor Jeannie Suk Gersen has asked the federal judge who presided over the 2018 admissions trial to unseal transcripts of sidebar discussions from the proceedings in the interest of knowledge, transparency and reporting. Harvard lawyers oppose the request while the New York Times and New Yorker magazine support Gersen’s request.
Post-Argument Articles
A selection of post-argument articles, including analysis and recaps. We will continue to add to this section as relevant articles are published.
The Asian American Challenge to Affirmative Action—and to American Jews
Ruth Wisse, Harvard professor emerita, asks why more American Jews haven’t protested affirmative action, a policy reminiscent of the 1920s. Wisse examines the corrosive ideology and intentions undergirding the practice and “house of lies” promulgation by elite schools. If overturned, Wisse expects that “places like Harvard will almost certainly resist” but that some universities may “come to grips with the harm they have done or tolerated.”
The Educational Benefits of ‘Diversity’
In the wake of the SCOTUS oral arguments, Yap writes that Harvard and UNC’s arguments “rely on a dubious conflation of two distinct concepts: racial diversity and racial balancing” and that “Justice Thomas is right to question the wisdom of letting the discriminators decide whether racial discrimination is necessary.”