US Supreme Court bans affirmative action in university admissions

Chief justice John Roberts of the Supreme Court
Support us and go ad-free

On 29 June, the US Supreme Court banned the use of race and ethnicity in university admissions. This dealt a major blow to a decades-old practice of ‘affirmative action’, which boosted educational opportunities for African Americans and other minorities.

One year after overturning the guarantee of a right to an abortion, the court’s conservative majority again demonstrated its readiness to scrap liberal policies set in law since the 1960s.

The ruling against ‘affirmative action’ was delivered by a court heavily stacked with conservatives. Donald Trump appointed three of the justices during his presidency alone.

‘Students for Fair Admissions’

The justices broke six to three along conservative-liberal lines in the decision. They sided with an activist group, Students for Fair Admissions, that sued the oldest private and public universities in the country – Harvard University and the University of North Carolina (UNC) – over their admissions policies.

The group claimed that race-conscious admissions policies discriminated against Asian Americans competing to enter the two universities.

Harvard and UNC, like a number of other competitive US schools, consider an applicant’s race or ethnicity as a factor to ensure a diverse student body and representation of minorities.

Such affirmative action policies arose from the Civil Rights Movement in the 1960s. They aimed to help address the legacy of discrimination against African Americans. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) described the manner of policies damaged by the ruling:

Read on...

Support us and go ad-free

Race conscious policies, such as affirmative action, aim to address racial discrimination by recognizing and responding to the structural barriers that have denied underrepresented students access to higher education. Race-conscious admissions practices allow universities to consider a student’s race as one factor in the admissions process in order to help create a diverse student body that enriches the educational experiences of all students.

Supreme Court: ‘Not on the basis of race’

The ruling dealt a heavy defeat to efforts to expand diversity in school admissions, as well as business and government hiring.

Chief justice John Roberts wrote in the majority opinion that while affirmative action was “well-intentioned” it could not last forever. He also ruled that it amounted to unconstitutional discrimination against others.

Roberts wrote:

The student must be treated based on his or her experiences as an individual – not on the basis of race.

The court said that universities were free to consider an applicant’s background – whether, for example, they grew up experiencing racism – in weighing their application over more academically qualified students. But deciding primarily based on whether the applicant is white, Black or other is itself racial discrimination, Roberts wrote.

Setback to progress

Justice Sonia Sotomayor offered a scathing rebuttal. She accused the majority of being colorblind to the reality of “an endemically segregated society”. She also wrote that:

Ignoring race will not equalize a society that is racially unequal.

This succinctly explains why affirmative action and similar policies are necessary in America. The president of the American Association of State Colleges and Universities, Mildred García, echoed Sotomayor’s sentiment. She said in a statement:

Fifty years since the passage of civil rights legislation has not been nearly enough to address or correct more than 350 years of discriminatory practices intended to keep people of color away from higher education institutions or, starting in the 19th century, severely limit their prospects of increasing their educational attainment.

In short, racism is far from over in America – or anywhere else, for that matter. As long as it persists, the university as an institution will be biased – overtly and covertly – against Black people. This is true of the admissions system, but is far from limited to it.

Featured image via Wikimedia Commons/Krisanne Johnson, resized to 1910*1000, public domain. 

Additional reporting via Agence France-Presse

Support us and go ad-free

We know everyone is suffering under the Tories - but the Canary is a vital weapon in our fight back, and we need your support

The Canary Workers’ Co-op knows life is hard. The Tories are waging a class war against us we’re all having to fight. But like trade unions and community organising, truly independent working-class media is a vital weapon in our armoury.

The Canary doesn’t have the budget of the corporate media. In fact, our income is over 1,000 times less than the Guardian’s. What we do have is a radical agenda that disrupts power and amplifies marginalised communities. But we can only do this with our readers’ support.

So please, help us continue to spread messages of resistance and hope. Even the smallest donation would mean the world to us.

Support us
  • Show Comments
    1. It is of course amazing to have lived through the Affirmative Action Era, when Black folks gained complete equality in the brutally unequal capitalist system. What tremendous progress was made in those decades… when a few fortunate Black people, mostly of the middle class, clawed their way to the top of the greasy pole, kicking away the ladder below them (to horribly mix metaphors).

      If AA were a successful method of equalising opportunities, it would have done so by now. That it hasn’t should tell us that (a) it will never do so, and (b) it was never intended to fundamentally restructure capitalist societies, just make the ruling class more ethnically diverse.

    Leave a Reply

    Join the conversation

    Please read our comment moderation policy here.