WASHINGTON − The Supreme Court struck down affirmative action policies at two major American colleges on Thursday, scrambling a decades-old effort to diversify campuses as the nation continues to grapple with race.
The ruling, decided on ideological lines, will require Harvard and the University of North Carolina to rework their admissions polices and will have reverberations across the country as other colleges come to terms with its implications. The decision may also have implications for the American workforce and the court itself.
Here’s are five takeaways from the Supreme Court’s major affirmative action decision.
Harvard, UNC affirmative action policies are out
Harvard and UNC considered race as one of many factors in their admissions, an approach that lower courts ruled was consistent with prior Supreme Court decisions. An anti-affirmative group challenged those polices, claiming that in the zero-sum game of high stakes admissions, the policies discriminated against Asian Americans and white students. The Supreme Court ruled on a 6-3 vote in the Harvard case − and 6-2 in the UNC decision − that the policies violated the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. In a statement, Harvard said it would abide by the decision but would remain committed to encouraging diversity, likely through other means.
Many other colleges will also have to rethink their policies
Several colleges − including Harvard − and education experts focused on a specific line in Roberts’ opinion. Nothing in the opinion, Roberts said, “should be construed as prohibiting universities from considering an applicant’s discussion of how race affected his or her life, be it through discrimination, inspiration, or otherwise.” That line may leave some room for schools to consider the impact of a person’s race, if not their race itself. Other experts said the court appeared to allow schools to consider race-neutral factors that may help promote diversity, such as a family’s socio-economic status or where they live.
However, in some states where race-conscious admissions were banned long before the ruling, creating a student body that is diverse and reflects the state’s high school population has proven difficult.
How might the Supreme Court’s decision affect the workplace?
The Supreme Court’s decision was limited to higher education and won’t directly affect employers. But the ripple effects from the ruling could nevertheless come quickly, starting with a decline in college graduates from underrepresented backgrounds, meaning the loss of “a pipeline of highly qualified future workers and business leaders,” companies from Google to General Electric warned the Supreme Court earlier in the case. Legal experts are also concerned the decision may embolden attacks on corporate diversity and equity and inclusion initiatives as tensions rise over how corporate America should address lingering workplace inequality.
How the decision may affect public opinion of the Supreme Court
The court’s majority, perhaps tellingly, was careful in how it discussed a 2003 precedent on affirmative action that Harvard and UNC claimed they were following. That decision, Grutter v. Bollinger, allowed schools to consider race as one of many factors in admissions. But while the court rejected the approach used by Harvard and UNC the court did not explicitly say it had overruled Grutter. The high court has been under intense scrutiny since last year when it overturned Roe v. Wade, the 1973 precedent that established a constitutional right to abortion. But polls suggested Americans are more divided over affirmative action and the Harvard and UNC cases never ginned up the same degree of controversy as last year’s abortion decision.
Read the decision: Supreme Court blocks use of affirmative action at Harvard, UNC
Supreme Court exempts military academies from the decision
In a footnote, the court exempted military academies, such as West Point, that use affirmative action − a distinction that raised eyebrows and drew some protest on the left. The Biden administration told the court during oral arguments last year that diversity is “vitally important to our nation’s military.” In the footnote, Roberts wrote that “no military academy is a party to these cases” and that lower courts never address “the propriety of race-based admissions systems in that context.” That sparked questions, including from Justice Sonia Sotomayor, about why the court saw national security implications for diversity in the military but not the higher education population at large.
“The Department of Defense is aware of the Supreme Court decision concerning affirmative action in college admissions,” said Jade Fulce, a Pentagon spokesperson. “We are currently assessing the decision and its potential impacts on our practices.”
Contributing: Alia Wong, Nirvi Shah, Tom Vanden Brook, Miles J. Herszenhorn.
