黑料社

WASHINGTON 鈥� The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday struck down race-conscious admissions programs at Harvard University and the University of North Carolina, effectively prohibiting affirmative action policies long used to raise the number of Black, Hispanic and other underrepresented minority students on American campuses.

In a blockbuster decision that will force many colleges and universities to overhaul their admissions policies, the justices ruled that affirmative action admissions programs that consider an applicant鈥檚 race in ways like Harvard and UNC did violate the U.S. Constitution鈥檚 promise of equal protection under the law.

Powered by the conservative justices with the liberals in dissent, the court sided with a group called Students for Fair Admissions, founded by anti-affirmative action activist Edward Blum, in its appeal of lower court rulings upholding programs used at the two prestigious schools to foster a diverse student population. The vote counts were 6-3 against UNC and 6-2 against Harvard.

In landmark rulings last year with far-reaching societal implications also spearheaded by the conservative justices, the court overturned the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that had legalized abortion nationwide and widened gun rights.

Speaking at the White House, Democratic President Joe Biden said he strongly disagreed with Thursday鈥檚 ruling, written by Chief Justice John Roberts, and urged colleges not to abandon their commitment to student diversity. Asked by a reporter if this is 鈥渁 rogue court,鈥� Biden replied, 鈥淭his is not a normal court.鈥�

Roberts wrote that a student 鈥渕ust be treated based on his or her experiences as an individual not on the basis of race. Many universities have for too long done just the opposite. And in doing so, they have concluded, wrongly, that the touchstone of an individual鈥檚 identity is not challenges bested, skills built or lessons learned but the color of their skin. Our constitutional history does not tolerate that choice.鈥�

According to Harvard, around 40% of U.S. colleges and universities consider race in some fashion. Blum鈥檚 group in lawsuits filed in 2014 accused UNC of discriminating against white and Asian American applicants and Harvard of bias against Asian American applicants.

Harvard and UNC had said they used race as only one factor in a host of individualized evaluations for admission without quotas 鈥� permissible under previous Supreme Court precedents 鈥� and that curbing its consideration would cause a significant drop in enrollment of students from under-represented groups.

鈥淗arvard and UNC admissions programs cannot be reconciled with the guarantees of the Equal Protection Clause,鈥� Roberts wrote, referring to the constitutional provision.

Universities, Roberts added, may still consider a student鈥檚 personal essays about 鈥渉ow race affected his or her life, be it through discrimination, inspiration or otherwise.鈥� But, Roberts said, 鈥渦niversities may not simply establish through application essays or other means the regime we hold unlawful today.鈥�

Affirmative action had withstood Supreme Court scrutiny for decades, most recently in a 2016 ruling involving a white student, backed by Blum, who sued the University of Texas after being rejected for admission.

The Supreme Court has shifted rightward since 2016 and now includes three justices who dissented in that case and three appointees by Republican former President Donald Trump, who is running again in 2024. Trump on Thursday hailed Thursday鈥檚 ruling as 鈥渁 great day for America.鈥�

Many institutions of higher education, corporations and military leaders long have backed affirmative action on campuses not simply to remedy racial inequity and exclusion in American life but to ensure a talent pool that can bring a range of perspectives to the workplace and the U.S. armed forces.

Thursday鈥檚 ruling appeared to exempt military service academies from its sweep, with Roberts highlighting 鈥渢he potentially distinct interests that military academies may present,鈥� and noting that the litigation had not addressed 鈥渢he propriety of race-based admissions systems in that context.鈥�

Biden, seeking re-election in 2024, recommended that colleges weigh a range of factors in admitting students including their economic backgrounds or hardships they had faced including racial discrimination.

鈥淒iscrimination still exists in America. Today鈥檚 decision doesn鈥檛 change that,鈥� Biden said.

鈥淚 believe our colleges are stronger when they are racially diverse. Our nation is stronger 鈥� because we are tapping into the full range of talent in this nation,鈥� Biden added.

鈥楲et them eat cake鈥�

Liberal Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, the first Black woman to serve on the court, wrote in a dissent: 鈥淲ith let-them-eat-cake obliviousness, today, the (court鈥檚) majority pulls the ripcord and announces 鈥榗olorblindness for all鈥� by legal fiat. But deeming race irrelevant in law does not make it so in life.鈥�

Jackson did not participate in the Harvard case because of her past affiliation with the university.

Liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor, the first Hispanic jurist on the court, wrote that the decision subverts the constitutional guarantee of equal protection and further entrenches racial inequality in education.

鈥淭oday, this court stands in the way and rolls back decades of precedent and momentous progress,鈥� Sotomayor wrote.

Sotomayor added that the 鈥渃ourt cements a superficial rule of colorblindness as a constitutional principle in an endemically segregated society where race has always mattered and continues to matter.鈥�

Blum鈥檚 group alleged that the adoption by UNC, a public university, of an admissions policy that was not race neutral violated the constitutional equal protection provision. It contended Harvard, a private university, violated Title VI of a landmark federal law called the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which bars discrimination based on race, color or national origin in federally funded programs or activities.

Harvard鈥檚 leaders said in a statement they would 鈥渄etermine how to preserve, consistent with the court鈥檚 new precedent, our essential values.鈥� University of North Carolina System President Peter Hans pledged to 鈥渇ollow the law.鈥�

American history

The United States is a nation that long has struggled with issues of race, dating back to its history of slavery of Black people that ended only after a civil war, the civil rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s and in recent years racial justice protests that followed police killings of Black people.

In a May Reuters/Ipsos U.S. poll, 49% of respondents agreed that 鈥渄ue to racial discrimination, programs such as affirmative action are necessary to help create equality,鈥� while 32% disagreed and 19% were unsure.

Thursday鈥檚 ruling did not explicitly say it was overruling landmark precedent upholding affirmative action.

But conservative Justice Clarence Thomas in a concurring opinion wrote that the court鈥檚 previous Grutter v. Bollinger ruling that colleges could consider race as one factor in admissions because of the compelling interest of creating a diverse student body 鈥渋s, for all intents and purposes, overruled.鈥�

People on both sides of the issue demonstrated outside the court following the ruling. Various Republican presidential candidates and lawmakers lauded the decision for embracing 鈥渕erit-based鈥� admissions. Democratic lawmakers called it a roadblock in the drive for racial justice.

Blum celebrated the ruling, saying it 鈥渕arks the beginning of the restoration of the colorblind legal covenant that binds together our multi-racial, multi-ethnic nation.鈥�

鈥淭he polarizing, stigmatizing and unfair jurisprudence that allowed colleges and universities to use a student鈥檚 race and ethnicity as a factor to admit or reject them has been overruled. These discriminatory admission practices undermined the integrity of our country鈥檚 civil rights laws,鈥� Blum said.

READ: US Supreme Court seeks Biden views on Harvard admissions dispute