US court to consider whether colleges can continue to consider race in admissions

The U.S. Supreme Court must consider whether colleges can continue to use race as a factor in student admissions in two cases that give the Conservative majority the chance to ban policies often employed to increase black and Hispanic enrollments and perhaps overturn its own precedents that allow such practices.

The judges, who face another contentious issue in American society, are due to hear arguments Monday in appeals from a group backed by a conservative lower court decision activist who advocates affirmative action admissions policies at Harvard University and the United States. University of North Carolina.

Many US colleges and universities value achieving a diverse student population not only to remedy inequality and racial exclusion in American life, but to bring a variety of perspectives to campuses with the goal of a richer educational experience for all. Critics argue that these policies themselves amount to unlawful racial discrimination.

According to Harvard, about 40% of US colleges and universities consider race in some way in admissions.

The Supreme Court upheld those policies, most recently in a 2016 ruling involving a white woman who sued her after the University of Texas rejected her. The courthouse has shifted to the right since then. Its 6-3 Conservative majority includes three judges who disagreed with that 2016 decision and three nominated by former Republican President Donald Trump.

The Harvard and UNC lawsuits were filed in 2014 by a group called Students for Fair Admissions, founded by anti-affirmative activist Edward Blum, who also supported the University of Texas plaintiff. Blum said he is not accepting a ruling against the schools, adding: “Trying to predict what the court is going to do is a foolish undertaking.”

The ruling in favor of the plaintiffs may require the court to overturn its 2016 ruling and earlier rulings.

In 1978, the court ruled in a case called Regents of the University of California v. Bakke that race could be considered as one of several admissions factors, including academic and extracurricular criteria, but he prohibited racial quotas. It reaffirmed that in a 2003 decision in a case called Grutter v. Bollinger.

The court’s conservative bloc showed a willingness to abandon precedent, as illustrated in the June decision to overturn Roe v. Wade in 1973 that had legalized abortion across the country.

“Diversity and Inclusion”

The lawsuits accused the UNC of discriminating against white and Asian American applicants and Harvard of discriminating against Asian American applicants.

“These challenges are part of a broader attack on the importance and value that the American Constitution and society place on diversity and inclusion in the core institutions of our society,” said Sarah Hinger, attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union, who presented pieces in the processes that support schools.

Democratic President Joe Biden’s administration is supporting schools.

Students for Fair Admissions cited data from Harvard showing that Asian American applicants were less likely to be admitted than white, black or Hispanic applicants with similar qualifications. He said UNC admissions data showed “clear” racial disparities in acceptance rates among similarly qualified applicants, with black and Hispanic students preferred over whites and Asian Americans.

Blum’s group argued that Harvard’s policies conflicted with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, which prohibits racial discrimination in any program that receives federal financial assistance, and that the UNC violated the 14th Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection. of the US Constitution under law.

The lower courts disagreed. For example, the Boston-based US Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit held that Harvard’s use of race was “significant” rather than “impermissibly extensive” because it prevented diversity from plummeting.

Chief Justice John Roberts is seen as the conservative judge least inclined to overturn precedent. But he disagreed with the 2016 ruling alongside conservative judges Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito.

Thomas, one of the court’s two black judges, was outspoken against racial preferences.

“The Constitution abhors classifications based on race, not only because such classifications may harm favored races or are based on illegitimate grounds, but also because whenever the government places citizens on racial registers and makes race relevant to the provision of burdens or benefits , humiliates us all,” Thomas wrote in a Grutter v. Bollinger.

Michaele Turnage Young, an attorney with the NAACP’s Legal Defense and Education Fund, which has filed documents supporting the schools, said the court may rule more narrowly than its 6-3 ideological divide might suggest, particularly after the political backlash from the decision on abortion.

“The court may be wary of overturning another long-standing line of federal precedent,” she said.

David Bernstein, a professor at George Mason University law school who provided brief support for Blum’s group, said he would be watching to see if the three liberal justices can find “some exit or limit” to allow some form of racial preferences to remain. . .

Liberal Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson, another black member of the court, declined to participate in the Harvard case, but is expected to participate in the UNC case. Jackson, the newest judge, attended Harvard and previously served on its Board of Supervisors.

(Reporting by Nate Raymond in Boston; Editing by Will Dunham)