Experts predict that the recent Supreme Court decision on affirmative action at Harvard will lead to an increase in lawsuits.

The Supreme Court Decision on College Admissions: A Historic Turning Point

The recent U.S. Supreme Court decision regarding the use of race as a criterion for college admissions has sparked intense debate. While proponents of the ruling argue that it corrects a previous injustice, critics claim that it perpetuates historic inequality.

In the case of Fair Admissions Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College, the Supreme Court’s 6-3 decision reestablished a strict interpretation of the 14th Amendment. This interpretation emphasizes equal treatment under the law and prohibits discrimination based on race, even if it benefits minority groups.

Critics argue that this decision represents a step backward. Domingo Garcia, president of the League of United Latin American Citizens, expressed his concerns, stating, “The Supreme Court’s ruling on affirmative action programs is a historic civil rights setback. It could make it significantly more difficult for minorities, particularly low-income first-generation Latino and DREAMER students, to enter higher education institutions. It puts them at an immense disadvantage and perpetuates societal inequality and injustice.”

However, there are those who view the court’s decision as a return to the original intention of the 14th Amendment. William Jacobson, founder of EqualProtect.org and professor of law at Cornell University, explains, “The Supreme Court firmly rejected the practice of using race as a factor in university admissions. Each individual is entitled to be considered for his or her inherent worth and talents, and race cannot play a role in that evaluation.”

The Case and Its Implications

The case revolved around the admissions practices of Harvard University and the University of North Carolina. The court found that Harvard’s practices discriminated against Asian students by giving preferential consideration to black, Hispanic, and Native American students.

Plaintiffs presented data showing that among black and Asian students with nearly identical GPAs and test scores, black students were admitted at a much higher rate. This evidence supported the argument that Harvard’s practices were biased.

Embracing Colorblind Policies

Justice Clarence Thomas, in his concurring opinion, quoted 19th-century Rep. John Lynch (R-Miss.), who stated that the duty of lawmakers is to disregard race, color, religion, and nationality when making laws. This aligns with the court’s decision to reject the notion that race-based distinctions contribute to genuine diversity.

GianCarlo Canaparo, a senior legal fellow at the Heritage Foundation, explains, “Racial diversity, as universities use it, is not related to genuine diversity. Racial categories are arbitrary and based on stereotypes. They oversimplify broad populations and cultures.”

Wai Wah Chin, an adjunct fellow at the Manhattan Institute, adds, “When we talk about ‘Asians,’ we are referring to a diverse group of people with different languages, religions, and histories. Racial categories are insufficient to capture this complexity.”

The court’s decision emphasizes the need for universities to focus on individuals rather than using race as a primary factor. Chin argues, “We’re talking about kids; we’re talking about individual applicants. When we reduce them to mere racial instruments, we do an injustice to our entire community.”

Addressing the Root Cause

With affirmative action no longer an option, proponents of the decision believe that colleges and other institutions will be compelled to seek more effective solutions to address the issue of academic underachievement among minorities.

GianCarlo Canaparo raises an important societal question: “What is the cause of persistent racial disparities? And what is the cure?” It is crucial to address the root causes rather than relying on race-based policies.