The US Supreme Court has ruled that race can no longer be considered a factor in university admissions.
The landmark ruling upends decades-old US policies on so-called affirmative action, also known as positive discrimination.
It is one of the most contentious issues in US education.
Affirmative action first made its way into policy in the 1960s, and has been defended as a measure to increase diversity.
US President Joe Biden said he “strongly” disagreed with the court’s decision, and the US would need “a new path forward that is consistent with the law”.
“We cannot let this decision be the last word,” he said. “Discrimination still exists in America”.
The cases concerned admissions at Harvard and the University of North Carolina (UNC). The court’s conservative majority ruled 6-3 against UNC and 6-2 against Harvard.
The justices sided with an organisation called Students for Fair Admissions, founded by a conservative activist, Edward Blum.
The group argued before the court last October that Harvard’s race-conscious admissions policy violated Title VI the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which bars discrimination based on race, colour or national origin.
Chief Justice John Roberts wrote: “Many universities have for too long wrongly concluded that the touchstone of an individual’s identity is not challenges bested, skills built, or lessons learned, but the color of their skin.”
His majority opinion said UNC and Harvard’s policies were “well intentioned”.
But he wrote: “Harvard’s admissions process rests on the pernicious stereotype that ‘a black student can usually bring something that a white person cannot offer.'”
Justice Clarence Thomas, a conservative and the nation’s second black justice, strongly criticized affirmative action programs, calling them “patently unconstitutional.” He argued that universities cannot justify discrimination based on race, regardless of their proclaimed righteousness.
The Supreme Court clarified that the opinion does not prevent universities from considering how an applicant’s experiences with race have shaped their life.
In dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, a liberal justice, expressed her concern that the decision undoes significant progress and establishes a superficial rule of colorblindness in a society that remains segregated.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, also a dissenting liberal justice and a black woman, described the decision as a tragedy for everyone. She criticized the majority for imposing “colorblindness for all” through judicial decree without considering the consequences.
Justice Roberts, writing for the majority, accused the dissenting justices of selectively ignoring aspects of the law they disagreed with. He found it troubling that the dissent would defend a judiciary that favors individuals based on their skin color, asserting that this approach undermines the principle of equal treatment.
UNC Chancellor Kevin Guskiewicz acknowledged that the university did not achieve the desired outcome but stated that they would review the decision and take necessary measures to comply with the law.
Harvard President Lawrence Bacow expressed the college’s commitment to adhere to the court’s decision while maintaining a diverse community that embraces individuals from various backgrounds and perspectives.
Edward Blum, the founder of Students for Fair Admission, celebrated the ruling, considering it the first step towards restoring a colorblind legal framework that unites the multicultural nation.
Former President Donald Trump, a leading Republican candidate for the upcoming election, hailed the decision as a positive development that rewards individuals with exceptional abilities and the necessary qualifications for success.
The Supreme Court has previously supported affirmative action programs in US universities, with the most recent endorsement occurring in 2016.
Nine states already have bans on race-based college admissions, and a ballot measure to reinstate affirmative action was rejected by California voters in 2020, twenty-four years after its initial ban.
While the Supreme Court’s conservative-leaning decisions, such as the overturning of Roe v. Wade, have drawn criticism from liberals, recent rulings on Native American child welfare and election laws in several states have been welcomed by the liberal community.
