The issue of affirmative action has been at the forefront of legal and educational debates in the United States for decades. In 2024, this issue is poised for a critical moment as the U.S. Supreme Court hears challenges to affirmative action policies in higher education. The cases in question, which involve Harvard University and the University of North Carolina (UNC), will determine the future of race-conscious admissions practices, potentially reshaping the landscape of college admissions nationwide. The outcome of these cases could have far-reaching consequences for diversity in higher education and beyond.
The Supreme Court and Affirmative Action: A history
Affirmative action policies in U.S. colleges and universities have long been the subject of legal challenges. The concept of race-conscious admissions first gained national prominence in the 1960s, following the Civil Rights Movement, which sought to rectify racial inequality. In the landmark 1978 case Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, the Supreme Court ruled that race could be considered as one factor in college admissions but prohibited the use of racial quotas. This ruling set the stage for future cases that sought to balance the goals of diversity with the principle of equal treatment under the law.
In 2003, the Court reaffirmed the constitutionality of affirmative action in Grutter v. Bollinger, which upheld the University of Michigan Law School’s admissions policy that considered race as part of a holistic review. The Court ruled that diversity in higher education was a compelling state interest. However, the Court also emphasized that race should not be the sole determining factor and that any race-conscious policies must undergo strict scrutiny.
More recently, in Fisher v. University of Texas (2016), the Court upheld the University of Texas affirmative action program but reiterated that universities must regularly reassess their admissions policies to ensure they meet the constitutional requirements of equal protection.
Harvard and UNC in 2024
In 2024, the Supreme Court is hearing challenges brought by the group Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA), which argues that the admissions policies at Harvard and UNC discriminate against Asian American applicants by imposing higher academic standards on them than on applicants from other racial groups. The plaintiffs argue that race-conscious admissions practices amount to “reverse discrimination” and that the universities’ policies violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.
SFFA’s challenge contends that Harvard, in particular, engages in racial balancing by considering race as a factor in admissions. This is a direct challenge to the use of race in college admissions, a practice that has been deemed legal in previous Supreme Court rulings but could be fundamentally altered if the Court rules against the universities.
At the heart of the challenge is the claim that race should not be used as a factor in admissions, with critics of affirmative action asserting that policies which prioritize racial diversity unfairly disadvantage applicants based on their racial background. This issue has gained significant traction, with Asian American groups in particular expressing concern that the use of race in admissions disadvantages them, despite their academic achievements.
The Case for Affirmative Action
Supporters of affirmative action argue that these policies are necessary to address the historic and ongoing effects of racial inequality. They maintain that diversity in the classroom leads to enriched learning experiences, fostering a broader understanding of different perspectives and preparing students to thrive in an increasingly multicultural society. Advocates assert that race-neutral alternatives, such as focusing solely on academic achievement, fail to account for the persistent barriers that underrepresented groups face, including disparities in access to high-quality education, socioeconomic challenges, and systemic discrimination.
Research has shown that a diverse student body promotes creativity, critical thinking, and better prepares students for the global workforce. Furthermore, proponents argue that affirmative action is a temporary but necessary measure to level the playing field and correct the entrenched inequalities in the U.S. education system.
The Case Against Affirmative Action
Opponents of affirmative action argue that race should not be a factor in admissions and that such policies amount to reverse discrimination. They contend that merit-based criteria, such as standardized test scores, GPA, and extracurricular achievements, should be the primary basis for college admissions decisions. Critics also argue that affirmative action policies unfairly disadvantage applicants from other racial groups, particularly Asian Americans, who often face higher academic standards than other groups.
For critics, the central issue is fairness. They believe that race-neutral policies would ensure that all students are treated equally, regardless of their racial or ethnic background. Additionally, they suggest that universities could focus on socioeconomic status as a factor in admissions, which could help achieve diversity without considering race.
The Supreme Court’s Decision: the future
The Supreme Court’s decision in these cases could drastically change the landscape of college admissions across the country. A ruling against affirmative action could lead universities to adopt race-neutral admissions policies, potentially decreasing the representation of minority groups on college campuses. In the absence of race-conscious admissions, universities may rely more heavily on socioeconomic factors or other race-neutral strategies, such as increasing outreach to underrepresented communities or expanding financial aid to low-income students.
On the other hand, a ruling in favor of maintaining affirmative action could solidify the legal basis for race-conscious admissions policies, ensuring that universities can continue to use race as one factor in their efforts to create diverse student bodies. Regardless of the outcome, the Court’s decision will have a profound effect on higher education, shaping the future of diversity, inclusion, and equal opportunity in U.S. universities.
Written by Anushka Sriram
