Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard

Background:

For decades prior to this case universities were allowed to consider race in admissions under certain circumstances. This meant they couldn’t simply give someone automatic admission due to race, but they could consider race as a holistic part of the admissions process. This framework was established by previous cases such as Grutter v. Bollinger. Harvard's admissions were considered to be a holistic process, considering activities such as extracurriculars, athletics, recommendations, and personal qualities. Despite this, race could also play a role in the evaluation. This was also impacted by racial composition of the applicant pool.

The Case:

Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA) is a non-profit organization founded by Edward Blum, challenging race conscious admissions policies. They sued both Harvard and University of North Carolina (UNC) through separate court cases on the same day in November 2014 due to racial discrimination. They claimed Harvard's admissions process violated constitutional rights, for equality regardless of race. They relied on the Equal Protection Clause under the Fourteenth Amendment, stating states cannot deny people equal protection of the laws. UNC is a public university, so the Fourteenth Amendment directly applies to it. Harvard, on the other hand, is a private university, however it receives federal funding. This case also incorporated Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, prohibiting racial discrimination by federally funded programs, which is how this applied it to Harvard.

Debates From Each Side:

SFFA claimed people deserve equal opportunities despite race. They stated the admissions process should be based purely on individual performance, activities, and traits. SFFA claimed Harvard's system discriminated against Asian American applicants by allowing race to be a factor in the admissions process. They argued, The Constitution states people should be treated equally regardless of race. Due to this, race should not be an influential aspect of applications.

On the contrary, Harvard argued considering race is a part of holistic admissions, and can help create a diverse student body. Due to this it is constitutionally permissible. They debated, due to other factors being considered, race as a factor in admissions is only to create a stronger and more balanced student body.

Verdict:

The Court ruled in a 6-3 decision against both UNC and Harvard, deciding that the incorporation of race in admissions was unconstitutional. By doing this the Supreme Court reversed the lower courts on June 29, 2023, and consolidated the case against Harvard with the similar case against UNC. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the majority opinion, concluding that the programs of these schools violated the Equal protections Clause as they treated applicants differently based on race, to create a constructed racially diverse environment. This ruling did however note that universities may still allow an applicant to explain how race or personal experiences, such as discrimination, impacted their life.

Legacy:

This influential Supreme Court ruling had an extreme impact on the college application and admission process, including how colleges and universities view students in regards to admitting from the application pool. Current data reveals strong impacts in the diversity of various colleges across the nation. Top universities saw immediate drops in first year Black and Latino enrollment, leading to many high achieving underrepresented students shifting away from hyper selective private colleges, towards public or less selective institutions. After this ruling data has shown populations of Asian and White students at top universities to have significantly increased. This has caused several universities to shift from being test optional, to bringing back SAT or ACT requirements. Overall, this case has created a lasting impact, which continues to be debated to this day.