Here’s What You Need to Know: Affirmative Action

YOUR QUESTIONS ANSWERED. We break down the basics of the lawsuit against affirmative action.

BY MICHELLE N. AMPONSAH AND EMMA H. HAIDAR CRIMSON STAFF WRITERS

What is affirmative action?

Race-conscious admissions policies allow institutions of higher education to use race as one factor to create a diverse student body.

Harvard College’s admissions process uses “holistic review” to evaluate applicants — factors like academic achievement, athletics, legacy status, and race are all taken into account. In the past three years, the College has admitted less than 4 percent of applicants.

According to the College’s Office of Admissions and Financial Aid, “academic accomplishment in high school is important, but the Admissions Committee also considers many other criteria, such as community involvement, leadership and distinction in extracurricular activities, and personal qualities and character.”

How has the Supreme Court ruled on affirmative action before?

The Supreme Court has taken up several major cases about affirmative action: University of Cal-

RULING FROM PAGE 1 ifornia v. Bakke in 1978, Gratz v. Bollinger and Grutter v. Bollinger in 2003, and Fisher v. University of Texas in 2013 and 2016.

Across the cases, the Supreme Court has ruled that racial quotas in admissions are unconstitutional, but the use of race as one factor in admissions is permissible since schools have a “compelling interest” in maintaining a diverse student body for educational benefits. Further, any consideration of race must be “narrowly tailored” to individuals, and universities may only turn to “racial classifications” if “workable race-neutral alternatives do not suffice.”

Harvard has been featured in the affirmative action debate for decades. In a concurring opinion in the 1978 Bakke case, Justice Lewis F. Powell Jr. pointed to Harvard’s admissions process as an “illuminating example” and a model for universities across the country.

What is Students for Fair Admissions?

Students for Fair Admissions was founded by Edward J. Blum, a conservative activist who has been pushing for an end to race-conscious admissions through litigation for nearly three decades. Blum is also president of SFFA.

Blum is no stranger to the Supreme Court. Through the Project on Fair Representation, a nonprofit that supports litigation challenging racial and eth- nic preferences that he founded nearly a decade before SFFA, Blum led efforts to finance the Fisher cases.

While the Supreme Court ultimately upheld affirmative action in both cases, Blum and his supporters came one vote short of overturning the precedent in 2016.

Blum also helped sponsor the litigation behind the landmark 2013 Supreme Court case Shelby County v. Holder, which gutted a key provision of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 that required states with histories of racial discrimination to attain federal approval before changing their election laws.

Blum established SFFA in 2014 as an offshoot of the Project on Fair Representation.

Why was Harvard sued?

SFFA alleges that Harvard’s race-conscious admissions policies discriminate against Asian American applicants and that the University’s admissions process violates Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

The group argues that Harvard consistently rates Asian American students lower on factors like “likability,” “courage,” and “kindness.” Court filings also showed that the University conducted an internal review of its admissions policies in 2013, revealing a bias against Asian American applicants on the “personality” metric, according to the New York Times.

Affirmative Action Struck Down

Harvard has long denied that its race-conscious admissions program discriminates against Asian Americans, who consistently rated lower than other groups in personal ratings, according to data filed in federal court in Boston.

In response to the decision, the University released a statement signed by top University administrators, including President Lawrence S. Bacow and President-elect Claudine Gay.

“In the weeks and months ahead, drawing on the talent and expertise of our Harvard community, we will determine how to preserve, consistent with the Court’s new precedent, our essential values,” it states.

The ruling overturns two lower court rulings in Harvard’s favor. The Massachusetts District Court ruled in support of Harvard in 2019, a decision upheld by a federal appeals court in 2020. In early 2021, SFFA petitioned the Supreme Court to hear the case, and the Court agreed to hear the case a year later.

The Supreme Court’s decision is a victory decades in the making for SFFA President Edward J. Blum, who has orchestrated more than two dozen lawsuits challenging racial preference laws.

The Court first ruled in favor of race-conscious admissions in Regents of the University of California v. Bakke in 1978. Until Thursday’s ruling, the Court had narrowly upheld affirmative ac - michelle.amponsah@thecrimson.com emma.haidar@thecrimson.com tion through challenges in 2003, 2013, and 2016. michelle.amponsah@thecrimson.com emma.haidar@thecrimson.com

Harvard categorically denies all allegations of racial discrimination.

How did we get here?

SFFA first sued Harvard in November 2014. In 2019, Massachusetts District Court Judge Allison D. Burroughs ruled in Harvard’s favor, finding that the College’s admissions policy did not discriminate against Asian American applicants.

“Harvard’s admissions program is narrowly tailored to achieve a diverse class and the benefits that flow therefrom,” Burroughs wrote.

SFFA immediately appealed the decision to the First Circuit Court of Appeals, which also upheld Harvard’s race-conscious admissions policy in 2020.

In 2021, SFFA petitioned the Supreme Court to review the case. On Jan. 24, 2022, the court accepted the petition and consolidated the Harvard and UNC cases.

The Supreme Court separated the cases on July 22, 2022, however, to allow newly seated Associate Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson ’92 to weigh in on the UNC case. Jackson had recused herself from the Harvard case due to her previous role on the Board of Overseers, the University’s second-highest governing body.

The court heard oral arguments in both cases on Oct. 31, 2022.

The Harvard and UNC rulings have far-reaching implications for universities across the country, whose current admissions policies will likely need to be adjusted.

We’ll be breaking down what this ruling means for the admissions process, students, and higher education.

The Supreme Court agreed to take on both lawsuits challenging race-conscious admissions policies. The Court also decided it would hear and consider the two suits together. It was the first major affirmative action case to come before the Court, which had recently expanded into a 6-3 conservative majority. Students for Fair Admissions asked the Supreme Court to overturn precedent, set in 2003 in Grutter v. Bollinger.

July 22, 2022

Newly seated Associate Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson ’92 recused herself from the case against Harvard as a result of her prior tenure on the Board of Overseers, the University’s secondhighest governing body. The Supreme Court then decided, in a procedural change, to separate the University of North Carolina and Harvard University hearings in order to allow Jackson to weigh in on the former case.

Oct.

31, 2022

After more than five hours across the two cases, the Supreme Court concluded hearing oral arguments. The Court’s conservative majority questioned the Harvard and University of North Carolina lawyers, signaling skepticism towards the universities’ raceconscious admissions practices. Outside of the courthouse, both proand anti-affirmative action activists protested with signs and chants. Several senior members of the Harvard administration attended the hearing.

Jun. 29, 2023

The Supreme Court decision was released. Presented by Chief Justice John Roberts, the majority opinion severely curtailed affirmative action in higher education admissions. The 6-2 decision also declared Harvard’s race-conscious admissions practices unconstitutional, a marked setback for the University. The Court also voted 6-3 against the University of North Carolina and its admissions practices. Both universities affirmed their commitment to diversity but announced they would abide by the Supreme Court’s ruling.

OPINION FROM PAGE 1