Civic Register
| 1.25.22
Supreme Court to Hear Cases Challenging Use of Race as a Factor in College Admissions at Harvard & North Carolina
Do you support or oppose the use of race as a factor in college admissions?
What’s the story?
- The Supreme Court on Monday announced that it will hear a pair of challenges to the use of race as a factor in the college admissions, which plaintiffs argue unfairly disadvantage Asian American students relative to other races. The cases will likely be heard this fall after a new term begins in October 2022 and decisions may be released in early 2023.
- One challenge contends that the consideration of race in Harvard College’s admissions policy has resulted in Asian American applicants being significantly less likely to be admitted than similarly qualified white, black, or Hispanic applicants. It asks the Court to overrule a 2003 precedent that allowed the use of race by the University of Michigan in admissions to develop a diverse study body and to evaluate whether Harvard’s policy violates the Civil Rights Act’s ban on racial discrimination by entities receiving federal funding. Harvard argues its consideration of race in admissions is used “in a flexible and nonmechanical way” to benefit “highly qualified applicants.”
- The other case involves admissions policies at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, that the plaintiffs allege violates the Civil Rights Act and the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, which UNC is subject to as a public university (unlike Harvard). UNC argues that while it has also attempted to promote diversity in its student body by recruiting low-income and first-generation college students, its “race-conscious admissions process” is the best way to ensure a “diverse and academically qualified” student body.
- These will be the first cases involving the use of race as a factor in college admissions that the Court has taken up since 2016. At that time the Court issued a divided 4-3 majority opinion led by Justice Anthony Kennedy and joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, and Sonia Sotomayor that upheld the University of Texas’s affirmative action policy. One seat was vacant at the time following the death of the late Justice Antonin Scalia, while Justice Elena Kagan recused herself because she had been involved in the case as the Obama administration’s solicitor general.
- The composition of the Supreme Court has changed significantly since then, as the Scalia vacancy was filled by Justice Neil Gorsuch, Kennedy retired and was replaced by Justice Brett Kavanaugh, and Ginsburg passed away and Justice Amy Coney Barrett took her seat on the bench. It’s possible that the Court’s 6-3 conservative majority may revisit the Court’s past rulings on the use of race in college admissions as part of affirmative action policies.
What is affirmative action?
- In general, affirmative action refers to laws, policies, or other practices that seek to eliminate and correct discrimination by providing special consideration in employment and higher education admissions decisions to members of racial minority groups and women.
- Affirmative action has been implemented as government-mandated or government-approved, while there are also voluntary private forms of affirmative action. In the past, affirmative action took the form of racial quotas and outreach to groups viewed by the institution as underrepresented.
- The Supreme Court has issued decisions allowing some forms of affirmative action but requires such policies to pass the threshold of “strict scrutiny” ― which means that the policies have to be narrowly tailored & advance a compelling state interest.
- Decisions have found racial quotas & racial point systems in college admissions to be unconstitutional, but that individualized reviews of applicants that take into account numerous factors including race can be permitted if they’re used to serve an interest like educational diversity.
What happened in recent debates over the use of race in college admissions?
- Voters in California and Washington have weighed in on the issue of using affirmative action factors including race in admissions to public colleges and universities relatively recently when referendums to reinstate such policies were on the ballot.
- California was the first of nine states to ban affirmative action, doing so in 1996 with 54.55% of voters supporting the amendment. In 2020, the state’s Democrat-controlled legislature approved a referendum to reinstate affirmative action on mostly party-line votes of 30-10 in the Senate and 64-14 in the Assembly. California voters then rejected the referendum in November 2020 with 56% opposed to the reinstatement.
- A similar referendum was on Washington voters’ ballots in 2019 after the state’s Democrat-controlled legislature voted to refer the issue of reinstating affirmative action to voters, who had enacted the ban in 1998, on mostly party-line votes of 56-42 in the House and 26-22 in the Senate. Washington voters then rejected the referendum in November 2019 with 50.56% opposed.
— Eric Revell
(Photo Credit: iStock.com / marvinh)
The Latest
-
IT: Battles between students and police intensify, and... 💻 Should we regulate AI access to our private data?Welcome to Thursday, May 2nd, listeners... The battle between protesters and police intensifies on college campuses across the read more...
-
Should U.S. Implement Laws Protecting Private Data from AI Access?Artificial intelligence is rapidly integrating into our everyday lives, transforming the way we work, live, and interact with read more... Artificial Intelligence
-
Protests Grow Nationwide as Students Demand Divestment From IsraelUpdated May 1, 2024, 11:00 a.m. EST The battle between protesters and police has intensified on college campuses across the read more... Advocacy
-
IT: Rumors spread about ICC charging Israel with war crimes, and... Should states disqualify Trump?Welcome to Tuesday, April 30th, friends... Rumors spread that the International Criminal Court could issue arrest warrants for read more...
I suspect that the Court will split the difference with the two cases, allowing current precedents to stand for “private” institutions while restricting or ending such practices at “public” institutions.
While I support equal opportunity especially to bless the campus with a diverse student body which as a result creates diverse oppinions, civics and critical thinking to think that or imply that this is the only factor for admissions is misleading. To begin with all students need to meet the standards for the particular higher educational institutions for which they apply. Most students also have their own lists of schools for which they want to attend also. I myself am more concerned about those students many of whom did not really actually qualify for an Ivy league or other getting admitted because of the who they know, donation, endowment, family or any other pulling some strings to get a/their children/student admitted without their own merit. That to me is the biggest travesty a bunch of spoiled entitled elitists acting as though they really earned it. An injustice that in the long run is a disservice to the betterment of our society as a whole and the student that was enrolled at the expense of those more qualified.
All children (young adults) should be getting into college because of their grades & community service. If they deserve a scholarship then give them one. I don’t feel race should be a factor to get people in or keep them out.
I also oppose the current Supreme Court. At least 2 of the justices should resign.
A person should be chosen by how smart they are. Color and the ability to play sports should not matter.
I really look foreword to the day when race, gender, ethnicity, social ‘status’, sexual preferences, sexual identity, age or anything that lets some see ‘others’ as less worthy is not, cannot, and will not be used to treat them differently in any way. We ain’t there yet. … … … I have no problem with equitable equal opportunity programs to assure that no one is denied an equal opportunity to succeed in their pursuits based upon their skills, knowledge and character. … … … Some will say they are not racist so why do this? You may not be overtly racist, yeah you - but not everyone is AND that is not the problem. The problem is systemic racism where the norms and practices of university admissions and indeed, everyday life disadvantage some to the advantage of others. Numerous statistical studies clearly document the disparities without finding any overt or systematic bias. Systematic bias is intentional whereas systemic bias is hidden within the established normative processes and procedures designed mainly by Judaeo Christian white males in the past. There have also been many case studies where a black male and a white male with identical experiences and resumes are treated very differently or the same actress looking ‘normal’ or redressing to look a bit overweight are treated very differently in loan applications and retail purchases. … … … Furthermore, so long as the best candidates are selected irrespective of race why shouldn’t there be an effort to assure that none are missed due to systemic bias which clearly still exists. … … … Our country’s laws and rules of proper etiquette have been heavily influenced by Judaeo Christian values, the fundamental precepts of which are very valuable. Do unto others as you want others to do unto you. Do not lie, steal, adulterate, kill. Honor the needs of others and be charitable to those is need. These are the fundamental values and precepts that I feel underpins every major religion and the unadulterated form of most societies. Every religion (and society) can be re-interpreted and spun away from the values that underpin it, in order to rationalize some manmade goals: Jihad, the Crusades, autocracies and so on. … … … The reason I mention this is that our norms of behavior have gone beyond the Judaeo Christian fundamental values and precepts to include the manmade rules of order and definitions of ‘normalcy’ proffered by manmade religious sects that have differing definitions because they are inherently flawed, because these definitions come from groups of people who cannot be the sole interpreters of what everyone else’s God’s will must be. … … … The Framer’s captured the fundamental values and precepts that should underly our democracy and kept specific secular religious views out of the constitution. I damn well wish that our Supreme Court would do the same, and check their actions within the context of their own indoctrinated biases coming from their religious beliefs.
Qualifications and not quotas - it's that simple. The country has been made dumber, less efficient and less safe in many regards by the ill-advised quota system. When it comes time to choose a welder to fabricate the supports for the next interstate bridge replacement in your state, do you want a journeyman welder or a kid fresh from a hobby welding class doing the work? Specific to the college admissions topic, what's been happening at colleges and universities is that students of Asian descent, that have proven a higher level of proficiency, are being denied admission because they couldn't check the desired "race" box on the application. That's discriminatory and just plain foolish. Like most leftist Dimocrat theories it fosters a system of inferior results. Which is okay with the liberal elite.
RACIAL preferences, whether they favor whites or blacks is discrimination, period.
Just as MLK said, it is important to judge someone on the content of their character not on the color of their skin. I would especially think that Harvard would know that, but hey I guess they didn’t learn from history.
Not only should race or gender not be a factor in college admissions, it should not be a factor in hiring, firing, or yes, it should not be a factor in the selection of a Supreme Court Justice. If the most qualified is a black women, confirm her. If by excluding males or members of a different skin color, the Court does not receive the best Justice, our Constitution has failed.
If race “doesn’t matter” in college admissions anymore than why did we create those systems in the first place? Oh yeah to counteract decades and centuries of wealth accumulation and discrimination from white people being shit for most of history. Are we goldfishes and do not remember? Why is there still a huge issue around student debt for people of color then? Because history. This is a misleading case of the ruling class trying to pit the “model minority” against other races to divide and keep us from uniting on the race issue. Race should be considered because it has always been considered even though it hasn’t been said out loud.
An Arizona bill would empower state legislators to reject election results Hey scotus forget college admissions Pretty soon you are going to have the Divided States of America … which YOU helped create due to sheer negligence, incompetence & ignorance Shame on congress Shame on scotus & judiciary
larubia 2749, Carina 0
Race was used as a factor to keep minorities out prior to affirmative action!
It should be nowhere on the app.
Start with Harvard and the land that it sits on! Where did they get that land? Oh I know..........One of the Eastern Tribes that were promised free tuition for their children, "as long as the grass grows and the rivers flow". Yep. that's what it said.
u shouldnt use race or ex to deterrmine who gets into a college
I think it is a good idea that the Supreme Court looks this over. It seems to me that the Democratic Party is trying to bring more division in our country. I don’t know where anybody else lives but where I live there is no prejudice him against any person of color, religion, nationality. Or religion. It seems to me also that Joe Biden likes bringing it up. I heard him And television that he wants to put a Woman of color on the Supreme Court. I don’t have a problem with that as long as she has been a judge for several years and has a good background and is non-partisan. Joe Biden’s history in the past he has never cared about people of color and there is so much evidence to prove it all you have to do is go back and look at the videos and the things that he said and what he is called people of color. He’s still not for people of color, he’s doing this because he knows he can fool them. Not all of them people of color are intelligent. They know a fraud when they see one and when they hear one. And that person is Joe Biden go back in history go back and look it up he does not care he’s a fraud and a liar.
I support it as many don’t have the support as Whites. We have a built in advantage which many will disagree with but look at your life and the role models you had.
We can end affirmative action for minorities once we have reached the same amount of time that affirmative action for white males was in place. So about a thousand more years.