The Supreme Court ruled Friday, June 30th that Harvard’s and University of North Carolina’s use of race in the admissions process was unconstitutional, changing the impact of affirmative action in higher education.
The 6-2 decision for Harvard and 6-3 decision for UNC ruled that both school’s admissions processes discriminate against Asian Americans and violate the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which bans institutions that receive federal funds from discriminating “on the grounds of race, color or national origin.” The decisions were widely expected due to the Court’s conservative majority.
Anti-affirmative action group Students for Fair Admissions first filed the suit in 2014 against Harvard in the Massachusetts District Court. Harvard won the trial in addition to the appeal to the First Circuit Court.
Chief Justice John Roberts, who graduated Harvard College in 1976 and Harvard Law School in 1979, wrote in the majority opinion that Harvard’s and UNC’s admissions policies violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.
“Because Harvard’s and UNC’s admissions programs lack sufficiently focused and measurable objectives warranting the use of race, unavoidably employ race in a negative manner, involve racial stereotyping, and lack meaningful end points, those admissions programs cannot be reconciled with the guarantees of the Equal Protection Clause,” Roberts wrote.
An hour after the decision on Thursday morning, Harvard issued a public statement to reaffirm
“the fundamental principle that deep and transformative teaching, learning, and research depend upon a community comprising people of many backgrounds, perspectives, and lived experiences.”
The joint statement, from outgoing President Lawrence Bacow, President-elect Claudine Gay, Provost Alan Garber, Executive Vice President Meredith Weenick, along with 14 University deans, included that Harvard will “certainly comply with the Court’s decision.”
Although undermining affirmative action, the Court stated that colleges may consider “an applicant’s discussion of how race affected his or her life, be it through discrimination, inspiration, or wise.”
“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,” the statement reads.
On the same day, Gay sent out a brief video, reaffirming Harvard’s position in preserving diversity. Although Harvard will comply with the decision, “but it does not change our values.”
“For nearly nine years, Harvard vigorously defended our admissions process and our belief that we all benefit from learning, living and working alongside people of different backgrounds and experiences.” Gay said. “For many, this decision feels deeply personal. It makes real the possibility that opportunities will be foreclosed, but at Harvard it has also strengthened our resolve to continue opening doors.”
UNC Chancellor Kevin Guskiewicz also released a statement immediately following the Court’s ruling on Thursday.
“Carolina remains firmly committed to bringing together talented students with different perspectives and life experiences and continues to make an affordable, high-quality education accessible to the people of North Carolina and beyond,” Guskiewicz wrote. “While not the outcome we hoped for, we will carefully review the Supreme Court’s decision and take any steps necessary to comply with the law.”
Universities across the New England region and across the country have issued statements in response to the Court’s ruling on affirmative action.
Boston University President Robert Brown described the Thursday decision as “profoundly disappointing because it takes us backward, potentially creating less diverse college campuses and a less just America.” He wrote that the decision is “antithetical to Boston University’s values and mission,” and will sustain their commitment, to the extent permitted by law, through recruiting efforts, holistic admissions process, financial aid policies and support and belonging programs for students.
President Joseph Aoun of Northeastern University wrote that, “In countless academic, extracurricular, and social settings, our students benefit from the rich tapestries and contours of our global community. This is an essential—not an optional—element of our mission to prepare them for the complex and varied world they will lead after graduation.”
“This is an obligation we owe to our students—and to society as a whole,” he added.
In a joint statement, University of Massachusetts officials wrote that along with Provosts and Admissions Directors on the five UMass campuses, they will assess how the University of Massachusetts’s admission process will be impacted by the legal changes.
“The University of Massachusetts will continue to follow the law, and will do so while sustaining its deep and longstanding commitment to diversity, equity and inclusion,” President Marty Meehan and the chancellors of the five UMass campuses wrote in the statement. “We believe this is essential to the advancement of academic excellence and critical to the preparation of our students to succeed in a global economy.”
Many Harvard undergraduates expressed their “disappointment” in the ruling results, although not “surprised,” given the conservative majority in the Court. Coalition for a Diverse Harvard, a group of Harvard affiliates advocating for greater diversity on campus, organized a rally in support of affirmative action on Saturday, two days after the Court’s ruling.
Harvard-Radcliffe Chinese Students Association Co-President Christy Zheng, a junior at Harvard College, said that the organization had been preparing for this decision for months.
“Along with the sadness for the current and future college students whose paths will be significantly affected by this issue, I also felt angry that Asian Americans had been used and manipulated in the trial,” Zheng said. “The majority claimed that this decision would make college admissions fairer and even touted that they made a choice that will benefit the Asian American community, but they have not.”
Korean American and Harvard College senior Jane Oh said that she sympathizes with the feelings of bitterness and resentment of Asian American college applicants, because she went through similar feelings and fear around discussing her Asian American identity.
“At the same time, it’s just really frustrating because it really feels as if Asian Americans here were really being tokenized and scapegoated in some ways,” Oh said. “And other communities of color have been scapegoated. And we’ve been pitted against each other.”
While many anti-affirmative action groups such as the SFFA celebrate because they believe it is a win for meritocracy, Oh pointed out that “people need to realize that college admissions were never very mitotic to begin with.”
Oh, along with other students, see this ruling as a potential fuel for tensions between people and communities of color. Korean American and Harvard College sophomore Abby Yoon believes that “ending affirmative action truly divides us against other communities of color more.”
Harvard South Asian Association co-president and Harvard College junior Sneha Shenoy said that “it’s really important for Asian American students to stand in solidarity with their peers” and to “refuse to be a part of the model-minority myth.”
“We have vast socioeconomic disparities in the Asian American community,” Shenoy said. “There are several ethnicities within Asian Americans and South Asian Americans that are underrepresented, still, that did benefit from affirmative affirmative action.”
Harvard and UNC are not representative of all colleges and universities across the country. Shenoy suggested the “possibility that this decision could impact schools that don’t have as many resources as Harvard does.” Higher education institutions more reliant on government funding may face further challenges in admitting a diverse class of students.
“I just think with affirmative action, a lot of the bigger influencing the impacts of affirmative action will be seen more at these public universities over private institutions like Harvard”
“I know a lot of Asian Americans who are happy about the decision, but I genuinely don’t think it’s going to make anything more, quote on quote, fair,” Oh added. “I really think that at the very elite level, like the top 10, top 20 schools, there’s not going to be that much of a change. And if anything, I think this is going to continue to be a very contentious issue within the Asian American community.”
