Supreme Court rules race-based affirmative action programs are unconstitutional

[Teh One Who Knocks]

By Anders Hagstrom , Haley Chi-Sing , Brianna Herlihy | Fox News




The U.S. Supreme Court handed down a major ruling on affirmative action Thursday, rejecting the use of race as a factor in college admissions as a violation of the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause.

Many universities have argued that race-based admissions ensures that student bodies remain diverse, while critics such as the plaintiffs in the cases argue the policy discriminates against many qualified students based on race.

Students for Fair Admissions, a student activist group, brought cases against both Harvard and University of North Carolina. The group initially sued Harvard College in 2014 for violating Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, which "prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin in any program or activity that receives Federal funds or other Federal financial assistance."

The complaint against Harvard alleged that the school's practices penalized Asian American students, and that they failed to employ race-neutral practices. The North Carolina case raised the issue of whether the university could reject the use of non-race-based practices without showing that they would bring down the school's academic quality or negatively impact the benefits gained from campus diversity.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit had ruled in Harvard's favor, upholding the outcome of a district court bench trial. The district court said that the evidence against Harvard was inconclusive and that "the observed discrimination" affected only a small pool of Asian American students. It ruled that SFFA did not have standing in the case.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson recused herself from the Harvard case due to her previous role on Harvard's Board of Overseers.

In the UNC case, a federal district court ruled in the school's favor, saying that its admissions practices withstood strict scrutiny.

The affirmative action cases gave rise to one of the most spirited court debates to occur within the Supreme Court building this past term, with Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito grilling Harvard's lawyer, Seth Waxman.



Alito pressed Waxman on why it is that Asian American students regularly receive lower personal scores on their applications than other races. Waxman talked around the justice's questions, causing Alito to get frustrated with the lawyer.

"I still haven't heard any explanation for the disparity between the personal scores that are given to Asians," Alito said.

Waxman then got into a tense back-and-forth with Roberts. The justice asked why Waxman was downplaying race as a factor in admissions decisions, when according to Roberts it must have some impact, or else it would not be included.

Waxman admitted that race was decisive "for some highly qualified applicants," just like "being … an oboe player in a year in which the Harvard-Radcliffe Orchestra needs an oboe player."

"We did not fight a civil war about oboe players," Roberts shot back. "We did fight a civil war to eliminate racial discrimination."

[Teh One Who Knocks]

By Patrick Hauf | Fox News




President Biden on Thursday condemned the Supreme Court's decision that it is unconstitutional for universities to use race as a factor in admission decisions, and recommended that schools across the country find a workaround for a decision that he said ignored legal precedent.

"Today, the court once again walked away from decades of precedent," Biden said. "I strongly, strongly disagree with the court’s decision."

"This is not a normal court," Biden said on his way out of the press conference.

The Supreme Court ruled in a 6-3 decision that the use of race as a factor in admissions for college is a violation of the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. Colleges will still be able to hear examples from students who overcame racial discrimination, but will be unable to judge on race alone.

"A benefit to a student who overcame racial discrim*ination, for example, must be tied to that student’s courage and determination," Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the majority opinion. "In other words, the student must be treated based on his or her ex*periences as an individual — not on the basis of race."

"Many universities have for too long done just the oppo*site," Roberts continued. "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."

On the basis of that opinion, Biden used his remarks to urge universities to priorize applicants who face discrimination, which he repeatedly emphasized "continues to exist in America."

"We need a new path forward — a path consistent with the law that protects diversity and expands opportunity," Biden said. "They should not abandon their commitment to ensure student bodies of diverse backgrounds and experiences that reflect all of America."

The president also announced he will direct the Department of Education to examine how universities can effectively encourage diversity after the Supreme Court decision.

The decision came in response to two lawsuits from Students for Fair Admissions, one against Harvard and the other against the University of North Carolina. The Harvard case alleged a failure to follow race-neutral policies, specifically for the admissions of Asian-Americans. The North Carolina case questioned claims that the use of race-neutral policies at public universities would hinder academic quality.

Roberts was joined in the majority by Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett.

[KevinD]

This is not a normal court

Congratulations moron. You finally got one right, and yes, I for one am happy af the SC rolled this way (as well as the Roe v Wade overturn)

[lost in melb.]

I guess they wanna ensure that universities are restored to the dignity of the bottom picture...and less like the rabble in the top picture.

[DemonGeminiX]

No, they want to restore merit-based admissions, the way it should be. That's how it should be across the board.

[Godfather]

No, they want to restore merit-based admissions, the way it should be. That's how it should be across the board.

I'd agree with that, if we agree on what merit-based means which we probably do.

Every stat points to inner city schools being objectively worse. A system that takes no account for the socioeconomic background of an applicant is obviously going to stack universities with people who have far more advantages in life, better education, tutors, more time to volunteer, succeed in athletics, better teachers and stability in their schools, etc. A system with racial quotas isn't something I can defend, but I'd also say a system which is 100% merit based, if that means 'all applicants reviewed equally', is going to mean that the zip code you're born in is probably the one you'll die in if you're born poor. And if that's the system, I can understand why the black community is the most concerned with that appraoch, given 50% of black kids attend inner-city schools versus only 20% of white kids. There's got to be ways to equalize the merit system to some extent, to give underprivileged kids a chance (again, regardless of race) when their high school transcripts don't score on paper the same way as kids born with far more advantages, IMO.

[lost in melb.]

No, they want to restore merit-based admissions, the way it should be. That's how it should be across the board.

Even the most rampantly fussy and conservative universities in Australia (one of which I went to) are not purely merit based. You can still scoop up the best in a poor area and they will perform very decently. Since minorities are mostly the majority demographic in these areas by definition that is affirmative action.

[Pony]

I'd agree with that, if we agree on what merit-based means which we probably do.

Every stat points to inner city schools being objectively worse. A system that takes no account for the socioeconomic background of an applicant is obviously going to stack universities with people who have far more advantages in life, better education, tutors, more time to volunteer, succeed in athletics, better teachers and stability in their schools, etc. A system with racial quotas isn't something I can defend, but I'd also say a system which is 100% merit based, if that means 'all applicants reviewed equally', is going to mean that the zip code you're born in is probably the one you'll die in if you're born poor. And if that's the system, I can understand why the black community is the most concerned with that appraoch, given 50% of black kids attend inner-city schools versus only 20% of white kids. There's got to be ways to equalize the merit system to some extent, to give underprivileged kids a chance (again, regardless of race) when their high school transcripts don't score on paper the same way as kids born with far more advantages, IMO.

Our "poor" are the richest in the world. With welfare cash + all the additional housing, food vouchers, medical and not having to pay taxes on all of the above the average is equal to anywhere from 45k-50k/year for those that take advantage of all the programs available.

While schools perform poorly in many low income areas, at least some of the contributing factors are self-inflicted by the residents. Bullying students who try to excel is common, the community teaching kids that they are victims and it's all someone else's fault and they are never going to get anywhere because the deck is stacked against them. Ignoring that 1% of the population in low income areas are committing almost all of the violent crime and protecting those individuals.

Having programs in place that will help with financial assistance for college as well as programs in place in poor performing schools to help those who work hard and show promise should be enough. Having federal rules that state that there are quotas for each race only lowers the bar for everyone and gives "spots" to people who are less likely to succeed. The program had had a severe impact on Asian Americans.

[KevinD]

I think all yall have good points and ideas, however, you've glossed over the intent of the SC ruling. The SC is not saying affirmative action is good, bad or wrong. They're saying the federal constitution doesn't have any purview on the subject, thus it remands to the states laws,not federal. The DOE has ruined schools in the US, in my lifetime.