Affirmative action's fate is before the Supreme Court. Here's what to know.
The Supreme Court is expected to rule soon on the fate of affirmative action, which could change how race is factored in college admissions. Above, students on the Stony Brook University campus in 2021. Credit: Newsday/J. Conrad Williams Jr.
The Supreme Court is expected to decide this month whether to end the decades-long practice of considering race as one factor among many in college and university admissions.
Prior court decisions held that promoting campus diversity is a “compelling interest” for all students, but critics complain that affirmative action that gives an edge to some students based on their race is unconstitutional and discriminates against other groups. Selective universities are bracing for what could be major setbacks to progress in admitting students of diverse races and backgrounds.
Here's what to know.
The court is ruling on two lawsuits, both filed by Students for Fair Admissions, a group led by conservative activist Edward Blum. He has opposed affirmative action for underrepresented minorities in college admissions for many years.
In one suit, the plaintiff alleged that Harvard University discriminated against Asian Americans, and in the second suit, that the University of North Carolina discriminated against whites and Asian Americans, as a result of the consideration of race in admission decisions.
The Supreme Court, with its 6-3 conservative majority, is expected to rule in favor of the plaintiff, based on the conservative justices’ questions and comments during oral arguments last October. If it rules that way, it would overturn decades of prior rulings that limited but did not fully bar consideration of race in college admissions.
Tiffany Graham, an associate law professor and the associate dean of diversity and inclusion at Touro College, said the legal community has long expected the Supreme Court to strike down affirmative action.
"They are fully anticipating that the Supreme Court is going to invalidate the use of race as a part of affirmative action," Graham said.
A court majority could surprise observers by upholding race-conscious admissions or further limit but not bar the practice. The court issued a majority opinion last week that found Alabama violated the Voting Rights Act by eliminating a majority-Black district — a decision that surprised many.
It has limited but upheld the legality of race-conscious admissions decisions in prior court cases.
After the landmark civil rights legislation of the 1960s, colleges and universities, to counter racial segregation and discrimination, set aside spots in their incoming classes for minority groups. In 1978, the Supreme Court decision Regents of the University of California v. Bakke ruled that the racial quotas were no longer permissible. However, because diversity was a “compelling interest” for all students, universities and colleges could consider race as one factor among many.
In 2003, the court said the University of Michigan’s practice of awarding points to minority applicants that boosted their chances would not be allowed, but the overall consideration of race as one of many factors would be.
It upheld that policy again in 2016 in another Blum suit against the University of Texas.
Some state university systems already bar any consideration of race in admissions, including the University of California and the University of Michigan, and they have argued in briefs to the court that diversity on selective campuses has been significantly diminished despite efforts to boost it through other means, including recruitment and attention to low-income applicants.
The inability to factor in race in admissions decisions could mean fewer Black applicants would be admitted to elite institutions, even though the Students for Fair Admissions suits argued that diversity could be achieved by using race-neutral factors such as family income in admissions decisions.
"Assuming that race is gone, then Long Islanders in both public and private schools will be looking for alternative, race-neutral measures in order to diversify their campuses," Graham said.
Administrators on Long Island campuses say that no matter what the court decision is, it will have little effect on their admissions policies or campus diversity. They say they reach out to the diverse Island community to attract a qualified and diverse applicant pool, and that they don’t need to reject qualified applicants of any race or ethnicity in order to find room for underrepresented minorities.
Farmingdale State College President John Nader said the decision will primarily impact “a small number of selective institutions,” which are campuses that admit only a small percentage of those applying to them and reject many more qualified applicants than they can admit.
“Most campuses are scrambling to recruit students and are not particularly selective,” he said in an interview last year when the suit was argued. “They get a diverse applicant pool or have very high acceptance rates regardless of the demographic.”
With Robert Brodsky
The Supreme Court is expected to decide this month whether to end the decades-long practice of considering race as one factor among many in college and university admissions.
Prior court decisions held that promoting campus diversity is a “compelling interest” for all students, but critics complain that affirmative action that gives an edge to some students based on their race is unconstitutional and discriminates against other groups. Selective universities are bracing for what could be major setbacks to progress in admitting students of diverse races and backgrounds.
Here's what to know.
Why is affirmative action before the Supreme Court?
The court is ruling on two lawsuits, both filed by Students for Fair Admissions, a group led by conservative activist Edward Blum. He has opposed affirmative action for underrepresented minorities in college admissions for many years.
In one suit, the plaintiff alleged that Harvard University discriminated against Asian Americans, and in the second suit, that the University of North Carolina discriminated against whites and Asian Americans, as a result of the consideration of race in admission decisions.
How might the court rule?
The Supreme Court, with its 6-3 conservative majority, is expected to rule in favor of the plaintiff, based on the conservative justices’ questions and comments during oral arguments last October. If it rules that way, it would overturn decades of prior rulings that limited but did not fully bar consideration of race in college admissions.
Tiffany Graham, an associate law professor and the associate dean of diversity and inclusion at Touro College, said the legal community has long expected the Supreme Court to strike down affirmative action.
"They are fully anticipating that the Supreme Court is going to invalidate the use of race as a part of affirmative action," Graham said.
A court majority could surprise observers by upholding race-conscious admissions or further limit but not bar the practice. The court issued a majority opinion last week that found Alabama violated the Voting Rights Act by eliminating a majority-Black district — a decision that surprised many.
How has the court ruled in the past?
It has limited but upheld the legality of race-conscious admissions decisions in prior court cases.
After the landmark civil rights legislation of the 1960s, colleges and universities, to counter racial segregation and discrimination, set aside spots in their incoming classes for minority groups. In 1978, the Supreme Court decision Regents of the University of California v. Bakke ruled that the racial quotas were no longer permissible. However, because diversity was a “compelling interest” for all students, universities and colleges could consider race as one factor among many.
In 2003, the court said the University of Michigan’s practice of awarding points to minority applicants that boosted their chances would not be allowed, but the overall consideration of race as one of many factors would be.
It upheld that policy again in 2016 in another Blum suit against the University of Texas.
What would be the impact?
Some state university systems already bar any consideration of race in admissions, including the University of California and the University of Michigan, and they have argued in briefs to the court that diversity on selective campuses has been significantly diminished despite efforts to boost it through other means, including recruitment and attention to low-income applicants.
The inability to factor in race in admissions decisions could mean fewer Black applicants would be admitted to elite institutions, even though the Students for Fair Admissions suits argued that diversity could be achieved by using race-neutral factors such as family income in admissions decisions.
"Assuming that race is gone, then Long Islanders in both public and private schools will be looking for alternative, race-neutral measures in order to diversify their campuses," Graham said.
How will the ruling affect Long Island campuses?
Administrators on Long Island campuses say that no matter what the court decision is, it will have little effect on their admissions policies or campus diversity. They say they reach out to the diverse Island community to attract a qualified and diverse applicant pool, and that they don’t need to reject qualified applicants of any race or ethnicity in order to find room for underrepresented minorities.
Farmingdale State College President John Nader said the decision will primarily impact “a small number of selective institutions,” which are campuses that admit only a small percentage of those applying to them and reject many more qualified applicants than they can admit.
“Most campuses are scrambling to recruit students and are not particularly selective,” he said in an interview last year when the suit was argued. “They get a diverse applicant pool or have very high acceptance rates regardless of the demographic.”
With Robert Brodsky
Carol Polsky writes news and features on wide-ranging topics, from superstorm Sandy, 9/11 and presidential elections to health care and the economy.
