By: Gabi Aste-Molina, Law Clerk
Editor: Sanmathi (Sanu) Dev, Esq.
On June 29, 2023, the Supreme Court held in Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College that race cannot be a factor in college admissions because it violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Students for Fair Admissions (“SFFA”) filed separate lawsuits against two highly selective universities: Harvard College and the University of North Carolina (“UNC”) in November 2014, alleging that these institutions’ admissions systems violated Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by considering race as a factor. The District Courts conducted bench trials in both cases to assess whether race-conscious admission programs violated Title VI and the Equal Protection Clause.
The District Court concluded that Harvard’s race-based college admissions program was constitutionally permissible. The First Circuit affirmed. The District Court concluded that UNC’s use of race in admission was permissible under the Equal Protection clause. The Supreme Court then granted certiorari in both cases (before judgment from the Fourth Circuit in the UNC case).
The Supreme Court explained that judicial precedent allowed college admissions programs to consider race only if such programs complied with narrow restrictions. According to the majority opinion, race-based admissions programs must pass strict scrutiny, cannot use race as a negative against non-diverse applicants or to stereotype people of color, and must, at some point, end. The Court held that both Harvard and UNC’s admissions programs failed all three criteria, and thus their race-conscious admissions violated the Equal Protection Clause.
First, the Court held that the race-based admissions programs could not be evaluated under strict scrutiny. The Court said that Harvard and UNC did not provide compelling interests sufficient to warrant strict scrutiny review stating that, for example, training future leaders was not a measurable goal. Further, the Court stated that the “admissions programs fail to articulate a meaningful connection between the means they employ and the goals they pursue.” Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College, No. 20-1199, slip op. at 24 (U.S. June 29, 2023). On this point, the majority opinion stated it was unclear how Harvard and UNC could measure educational benefits stemming from diversity when they use broad racial categories for its student racial composition.
Second, the Court held that race-conscious admissions run afoul of the Equal Protection Clause by using race as a “negative” against non-diverse applicants and to stereotype racial minorities. Id. at 27. The Court noted that the Fifth Circuit found Harvard admitted less Asian American students and that colleges cannot afford some applicants a benefit that others do not receive because college admissions are zero-sum. In addition, the Court stated that considering race in college admissions is stereotyping because a university “engages in the offensive and demeaning assumption that [students] of a particular race, because of their race, think alike.” Miller v. Johnson, 515 U.S. 900, 911-12 (1995).
Finally, the Court stated that race-based admissions must have an end point. The Court disagreed with the universities’ assertion that race-based admissions would end when “there is ‘meaningful representation and meaningful diversity’ on college campuses.” Students for Fair Admissions, slip op. at 30. The Court pushed back stating that comparing the racial breakdown on campus is no different than racial balancing, which is unconstitutional. Fisher v. University of Tex. at Austin, 570 U.S. 297, 311 (2013).
At the end of the opinion, the Court noted some exceptions. College admissions may still consider how race has impacted an applicant’s life. The Court stated, “nothing in this opinion 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.” Students for Fair Admissions, slip op. at 39. In addition, military academies may still consider an applicant’s race for admission.
