On June 29, 2023, the Supreme Court rendered a 6-3 decision, invalidating the use of race as a distinct criterion in college and university admissions. This decision was based on the grounds that it violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.
As a result, longstanding admissions programs, such as those implemented by Harvard University and the University of North Carolina, which have been used for 45 years, are now prohibited.
Chief Justice John Roberts, in the majority opinion, noted that applicants are still allowed to express in their essays how their heritage or culture inspired them to hold leadership positions, for example. The majority firmly maintained that applicants should be evaluated based on their individual experiences, rather than their race.
Who is Affected?
The prohibition of affirmative action coincides with a movement aimed at ending diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives in higher education.
There is no denying that the court's decision significantly weakens the decades worth of legal precedent and will significantly impact race-conscious admissions, which are crucial for fostering a diverse student population.
Advocates of affirmative action have consistently asserted that eliminating the practice in higher education will adversely affect academically qualified students of color who have faced historical racial and economic disadvantages for generations.
For instance, following the ban on race-conscious admissions in California in 1996 with Proposition 209, the University of California, Los Angeles, experienced a substantial decline in the enrollment of Black and Latinx students. By 2006, out of the nearly 5,000 freshmen, only 96 were Black students.
In the United States, there are approximately 4,000 colleges and universities, but only a small fraction—slightly over 200—hold highly selective admissions practices, admitting less than 50% of applicants. These are the schools where a ruling on race-conscious admissions could have a notable impact.
College and university admissions have policies in place to review applications holistically, considering several factors including whether students were the first in their family to go to college, what high school they attended, and their family's income.
Chief Justice Roberts also acknowledged that an applicant's discussion of race can have an impact on their life experiences. However, this ruling raises several uncertainties regarding the specific consideration of race-related issues raised in application essays and whether educational institutions can continue implementing scholarships and recruitment programs that focus on underrepresented minority groups.
The Future of Selective Admissions
Race is now considered unconstitutional, while other preferences, such as legacy admissions, remain.
Following the Court’s controversial decision, three civil rights groups represented by Lawyers of Civil Rights filed a complaint with the U.S. Department of Education against Harvard University. The complaint alleges that Harvard’s preferential policy for undergraduate applicants with family “legacy” ties to the elite school disproportionately favors white students.
As per the complaint filed on Monday, approximately 70% of Harvard applicants who have family connections to donors or alumni are white. These applicants are roughly six times more likely to secure admission compared to other candidates.
The complaint asserts that Harvard's legacy preference disregards merit and unfairly deprives qualified students of color of admission opportunities. It urges the U.S. Education Department to declare this practice as illegal and force Harvard to discontinue it as long as the university continues to receive federal funding.
According to a survey conducted by the Associated Press, legacy students constituted a range of 4% to 23% of the freshman classes in the nation's most selective colleges last year. Notably, at four institutions—Notre Dame, University of Southern California, Cornell, and Dartmouth—the number of legacy students exceeded the number of Black students enrolled.
While the practice of granting preference to applicants with family ties fosters an alumni community and promotes donations, it is important to note that the majority of legacy applicants are predominantly white.
It is worth highlighting that these admissions preferences, despite their implications, remain entirely legal. It’s only considering race in admissions that is all but banned.
תגובות