By PRFSU Writers 2023-2024 Mia Crossen
What happened?
Students For Fair Admission (SFFA), a nonprofit organization that believes “racial classifications and preferences in college admissions are unfair, unnecessary, and unconstitutional”, accused Harvard University of using race as a factor in admissions as a way of discriminating against Asian American applicants in favor of White applicants, violating the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. SFFA’s mission is “to support and participate in litigation that will restore the original principles of our nation’s civil rights movement: A student’s race and ethnicity should not be factors that either harm or help that student to gain admission to a competitive university.” Harvard has admitted to using race as a factor in its admissions process but holds that they do so in compliance with the law. The case rests on the question of whether or not Harvard’s use of race as a factor in admissions violates Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which states, “no person in the United States shall, on the ground of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.” (U.S. Department of Labor).
The Question: Does Harvard’s use of race as a factor in the admissions process violate Title VI of the Civil Rights Act?
How did we get here?
The question of whether or not universities can use race as a factor in admissions is nothing new. In Grutter v. Bollinger, the case which set the precedent for the legality of using race as a factor in college admissions, the Supreme Court ruled against Grutter, who alleged she was denied admission to the University of Michigan Law School due to her race. Grutter v. Bollinger raised the same question as the SFAA v. Harvard case: Does a race-conscious admissions process violate Title VI of the 14th Amendment? In the case of Grutter v. Bollinger, the Supreme Court ruled that due to the extensive application and interview process of each applicant for law school, the use of a race-conscious admissions process does not violate Title VI, as the admissions process does not discriminate against non-minority applicants. The Supreme Court’s decisions in both Grutter v. Bollinger and California v. Bakke, another case that questioned the constitutionality of the use of race as a factor in the admissions process, held that affirmative action, or considering race as a factor in admissions, is a constitutional way for schools to diversify their student body, as long as an applicant’s race does not “automatically” increase their chance of being admitted.
What is Affirmative Action?
Affirmative action is “a set of procedures designed to; eliminate unlawful discrimination among applicants, remedy the results of such prior discrimination, and prevent such discrimination in the future”. As the American Civil Liberties Union explains, Affirmative action is a lawful tool that allows universities to account for racial inequities and discrimination. These racial inequities include unequal access to college counselors, resources, and equal education for minorities. Colleges across the nation defend affirmative action because they claim to use it in an effort to diversify incoming classes. Some argue that if Harvard were to switch to an admissions process where race is not a factor, the diversity of its student body would suffer as a result.
What is at Stake?
The Supreme Court will be deciding if colleges and universities can continue to use race as a factor in the admissions process, more commonly known as affirmative action. Universities are pushing back against the repeal of affirmative action, as they claim that removing race as a factor in admissions will lead to a less diverse student population. If the Supreme Court decides to overturn Grutter v. Bollinger, then universities will not be allowed to consider race when evaluating applicants. This decision has far-reaching impacts, ranging from law school to medical school, other graduate schools, and undergraduate admissions.
What is Next?
The Supreme Court is set to make a decision on SFFA v. Harvard in June of 2023. So far, every lower court has sided with Harvard. However, the conservative-leaning Supreme Court recently overturned another landmark case, Roe v. Wade, which leaves this decision uncertain.
References
California v. Bakke. Oyez. (n.d.). Retrieved March 24, 2023, from https://www.oyez.org/cases/1979/76-811
Cornell Law School. (n.d.). Affirmative action. Legal Information Institute. Retrieved March 24, 2023, from https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/affirmative_action
Grutter v. Bollinger. Oyez. (n.d.). Retrieved March 24, 2023, from https://www.oyez.org/cases/2002/02-241
U.S. Department of Labor. (n.d.). Title VI, Civil Rights Act of 1964. DOL. Retrieved March 24, 2023, from https://www.dol.gov/agencies/oasam/regulatory/statutes/title-vi-civil-rights-act-of-1964#:~:text=No%20person%20in%20the%20United,activity%20receiving%20Federal%20financial%20assistance.