A controversial and decades-old admissions practice in higher education could be on the chopping block as the Supreme Court heard oral arguments Monday in two separate cases.
Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA) filed lawsuits against Harvard University and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, alleging the race-based admissions policies of both schools discriminate against Asian Americans.
According to the complaint against Harvard, the Ivy League school's undergraduate admissions policies “intentionally and improperly” discriminated against plaintiff students “on the basis of their race and ethnicity.” The University of North Carolina similarly employs “racially and ethnically discriminatory policies and procedures” through their admissions program, the University of North Carolina suit alleges.
“Classifications of citizens solely on the basis of race are by their very nature odious to a free people whose institutions are founded upon the doctrine of equality,” the group cited Supreme Court case Shaw v. Reno. “They threaten to stigmatize individuals by reason of their membership in a racial group and to incite racial hostility,” SFFA further invoked.
Immigrant and activist Asra Nomani described the battle faced on the university level as “just one front of this wider assault against Asian Americans,” Fox News reported. Questions posed by three of the justices were devoid of any reference to Asian Americans, she told the outlet. “And the social justice movement diversity doesn't include Asians and we end up erased so much from the evaluation of what is best for America,” Nomani continued.
Harvard and UNC defended their goals of achieving diversity in their student bodies, NPR recounted. Admissions practices “need not ignore a candidate's race any more than it does a candidate's home state, national origin, family background, or special achievements,” the outlet cited. The Justice Department, which describes diversity within the military as a “critical national security imperative,” backs both colleges in their defense, CBS News noted.
More than two decades have passed since the Supreme Court ruled universities could use race as a factor in admissions for the sake of diversity in student representation. Two of the Court's conservative justices questioned when, if ever, the goal of affirmative action would be achieved within universities and colleges. Justices Kavanaugh and Barrett referred to Justice Sandra Day O'Connor's 2003 suggestion that the use of racial preferences will no longer be needed in 25 years. “When does it end? When is your sunset? When will you know?,” CBS News quoted Barrett.
Liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor claimed race is not the only justification for an applicant's admission. University admissions staff consider a multitude of other factors, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson asserted, according to CBS News.
The Court's conservative majority seems predictive of an imminent end to affirmative action in American colleges and universities. A ruling in favor of SFFA carries implications beyond the halls of college campuses, potentially challenging an increasingly popular idea that racial diversity is crucial to military effectiveness and national security. SCOTUS watchers can expect a decision on affirmative action sometime next year.
The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the positions of American Liberty News.
READ NEXT: Pennsylvania Supreme Court Rules on Mail-in Ballot Controversy >>
Perhaps this is a step in the right direction.
Affirmative action was never justified. Those whom it supposedly benefits are, in fact, being admitted when they are not actually scholastically qualified. This puts them in a bad situation: they are denigrated as “affirmative action” enrollees who are not really qualified, and they are not academically prepared for the classes. This causes a high drop-out rate. Meanwhile, qualified students whose race lowers their affirmative action ranking don’t get admitted.
The other bad thing about affirmative action is that it institutionalizes the idea that some races are smarter than others. Those who have points added to their admissions scores on the basis of race are basically being systematically deemed as unintelligent. This must be what is meant by “systemic racism.”
University admissions should never be based on factors which have no bearing on academic achievement or potential.
I hope that they totally end race as a standard or condition of academics admission and every other place that “racism” comes up. Affirmative Action was codified in a noble attempt to help Black people that had been disadvantaged by years of slavery and “Jim Crow” laws passed by the Democrats after they lost the Civil War. It disadvantaged a whole generation of Caucasian people like myself to get it done and it cost me dearly the 3 times it prevented me from getting two great jobs as well as a key promotion. I understand why it was necessary to correct the sins of the previous generation and I made the most of it. That legislation, which was against the Constitution was supposed to be ended after a period of 25 years as it should have equalized the “playing field” by then. It was continued for another 33 years because it was weaponized by the minorities because they reaped the benefits of being a special class with more privileges. It has split this nation down the middle because of the Democrat Party employing the race card every time they can to win an issue. Our national creed is ‘ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL”! Nowhere does it say or imply that a portion of the population is more equal. Now they are crying for “DIVERSITY” as the standard towards which we should strive. Just note that the root word of “diversity” is to divide! This is even contrary to our nation’s famous motto; “E PLURIBUS UNIM” which translated states that “out of many, we are one”. It is time to end this policy of affirmative action because if it has not achieved the desired result in 60 years, it never will. Also, it needs to cover all of American society, not just the federally funded parts. I and many others are tired of “racism” every time it raises it’s ugly head.
Well said.
The term “diversity”, as it is used today, is a stalking horse for racism. We have a diverse population but the use of diversity to shoehorn square pegs into round holes or, more accurately, to limit the holes to fit a fixed proportion of pegs, is inherently biased. In the case of race it is racist.