Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College
-
What is the Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard law case about?
The Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard College law case questioned whether the Supreme Court's 2003 decision in Grutter v. Bollinger, permitting limited consideration of race in university admissions, should be overturned.
In June 2023, the Supreme Court ruled that Harvard and the University of North Carolina's admissions policies violated the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court held that these policies failed to adhere to restrictions set by Grutter, namely, that they relied on racial stereotypes, used race as a negative factor, and lacked a predetermined end. While race cannot be a determining factor, the Court said that universities may consider how race has affected an applicant's character, such as through discrimination or inspiration. This decision is widely viewed as effectively ending race-based affirmative action in college admissions.
3 Britannica SourcesCreated from Britannica articles using AI. AI can make mistakes, so verify using Britannica articles. -
Who were the main groups involved in this court case?
The central parties in Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College were Students for Fair Admissions (plaintiff) and the President and Fellows of Harvard College (defendant).
Students for Fair Admissions argued that Harvard's affirmative action admissions policy violated Title VI of the Civil Rights Act by discriminating against Asian American applicants. Harvard maintained that its policy was consistent with previous Supreme Court rulings, allowing race to be considered as one factor among many to promote diversity.
The Supreme Court ultimately ruled against Harvard, stating that its affirmative action program violated the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment because it did not meet the restrictions for considering race outlined in Grutter v. Bollinger. This decision effectively ended race-based affirmative action in college admissions.
3 Britannica SourcesCreated from Britannica articles using AI. AI can make mistakes, so verify using Britannica articles. -
What did Students for Fair Admissions argue against Harvard's admissions process?
Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA) argued that Harvard's admissions policy violated Title VI of the Civil Rights Act and that the Supreme Court should overturn its prior ruling in Grutter v. Bollinger (2003), which permitted limited consideration of race in university admissions. SFFA contended that Grutter was "grievously wrong" because it allowed intentional racial discrimination. They also argued that universities should not reject race-neutral admissions policies simply because they might alter the racial composition of the student body.
2 Britannica SourcesCreated from Britannica articles using AI. AI can make mistakes, so verify using Britannica articles. -
How did Harvard defend its use of race in admissions?
In Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College, Harvard maintained that its admissions policies, which considered race as one factor among many, were essential to creating a diverse student body. They argued that these policies were consistent with previous Supreme Court rulings, specifically Grutter v. Bollinger, which allowed for the limited consideration of race to achieve diversity. Harvard contended that its approach was "narrowly tailored" and did not give an automatic advantage to any particular racial group, but rather considered race in a holistic review process. The university asserted that diversity enriches the educational experience for all students, preparing them for leadership in a diverse society.
However, the Supreme Court ultimately ruled against Harvard, stating that its admissions policies violated the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court found that Harvardâs program did not meet the restrictions outlined in Grutter, as it relied on racial stereotypes, used race as a negative factor for some applicants, and lacked a defined endpoint.
3 Britannica SourcesCreated from Britannica articles using AI. AI can make mistakes, so verify using Britannica articles. -
What did the Supreme Court decide in this case?
In Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College, the Supreme Court ruled (6â3) that the admissions policies of Harvard University and the University of North Carolina (UNC) violated the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court's majority opinion, written by Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., stated that the schools failed to abide by the restrictions on race consideration established in Grutter v. Bollinger.
The Court argued that the programs used stereotyped assumptions, treated race as a negative factor for some applicants, and lacked a defined endpoint. While race cannot be a determining factor, the Court said universities can consider how race affected an applicant's character, such as through discrimination. The ruling is widely viewed as effectively ending race-based affirmative action in college admissions.
3 Britannica SourcesCreated from Britannica articles using AI. AI can make mistakes, so verify using Britannica articles. -
How has this decision affected college admissions policies in the United States?
The Supreme Court's ruling in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard College has significantly impacted college admissions policies in the United States. The Court held that race-based affirmative action programs violate the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
This decision effectively ended race-based affirmative action in college admissions, requiring institutions to remove race as a determining factor. While colleges can still consider how race has affected an applicant's character or life, this must be tied to a specific quality the applicant can contribute to the university, not the applicant's race itself. The ruling is expected to lead to a reshaping of affirmative action policies in higher education.
3 Britannica SourcesCreated from Britannica articles using AI. AI can make mistakes, so verify using Britannica articles.
Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College, legal case in which the U.S. Supreme Court ruled (6â3) on June 29, 2023, that the admissions policies of Harvard University and the University of North Carolina (UNC), which incorporated the limited consideration of the race of applicants as a means of maintaining a racially diverse student body, violated the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment (1868) to the U.S. Constitution, which prohibits states from denying to any person the âequal protection of the laws.â The Courtâs decision was widely understood to mark the effective end of all race-based affirmative action programs in college and university admissions in the United States.
Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College presented the question of whether the Courtâs 2003 decision in Grutter v. Bollinger (see Bollinger decisions), which permitted the limited consideration of race in the admissions policy of the University of Michigan Law School, should be overturned. The Grutter Court, in a majority opinion written by Justice Sandra Day OâConnor, had found the law schoolâs policy to be acceptableâthat is, consistent with the equal protection clause and not in violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, which prohibits racial discrimination by institutions that receive federal fundingâon the grounds that it did not grant an automatic advantage to applicants belonging to a particular race but instead used race in a ânarrowly tailoredâ and âholisticâ manner for the legitimate purpose of promoting a racially diverse student body. In January 2022 the Court agreed to review Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College and consolidated it with a similar case, Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. University of North Carolina, which presented the same question. In July, after the Courtâs newest justice, Ketanji Brown Jackson, recused herself from the case involving Harvard (because she had served on the universityâs board of overseers), the Court announced that it would hear the cases separately, thus permitting Jackson to participate in the case involving the University of North Carolina.
The plaintiff in both cases, Students for Fair Admissions, Inc., argued that the Grutter Courtâs ruling was âgrievously wrongâ and should be overturned because it permitted intentional racial discrimination in college and university admissions. The plaintiff also asked the Court to find that the admissions policy of Harvard violated Title VI of the Civil Rights Act and that the policy of the University of North Carolina violated both Title VI and the equal protection clause..
" height="20" alt="HEW Logo">
In its majority (6â3) opinion, written by Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., the Supreme Court held that the admissions policies of both Harvard University and the University of North Carolina violated the equal protection clause. Both schools, the Court argued, had failed to observe a set of restrictions on the permissible consideration of race that the Grutter decision had found to be necessary for consistency with the equal protection clause: namely, that the programs not operate on the basis of stereotyped assumptions regarding the viewpoints of minority applicants; that they not use race as a negative factor in the assessment of applicants who were not members of a preferred racial group; and that they not continue indefinitely but come to a predetermined end.
According to the Courtâs majority, although an applicantâs race cannot be treated as itself a positive or negative factor in an admissions decision, colleges and universities may consider applicantsâ accounts of how race has affected their characters. âNothing in this opinion,â Roberts wrote, âshould be construed as prohibiting universities from considering an applicantâs discussion of how race affected his or her life, be it through discrimination, inspiration, or otherwise.â What would be relevant in such situations is not the fact that applicants had faced challenges stemming from their racial identity but the virtues or skills that applicants developed through those experiences. âA benefit to a student who overcame racial discrimination, for example, must be tied to that studentâs courage and determination. Or a benefit to a student whose heritage or culture motivated him or her to assume a leadership role or attain a particular goal must be tied to that studentâs unique ability to contribute to the university.â
Robertsâs opinion was joined by Justices Samuel A. Alito, Jr., Amy Coney Barrett, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Clarence Thomas. Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Thomas also filed separate concurring opinions. Justice Sonia Sotomayor filed a dissenting opinion, which was joined by Justice Elena Kagan in full and by Justice Jackson as it applied to Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. University of North Carolina. Jackson also filed a dissenting opinion in Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. University of North Carolina, which was joined by Justices Kagan and Sotomayor.