The Supreme Court, now nominally stacked with a majority of conservative justices, overturned fifty years of federally-permitted abortion in its last term. Now, it has its eyes set on another hot topic issue of contemporary America with roots from half a century ago: Race-based affirmative action policies in higher education admissions.
Anticipating the case to be one of the most contentious throughout the next term for justices, which begins next week, Time ran an in-depth article outlining two cases that will be argued in front of justices. Of the first, Time wrote:
The first case, Students for Fair Admissions Inc. v. President & Fellows of Harvard College, alleges that Harvard’s race-conscious admissions policy discriminates against Asian American applicants, arguing that Asian Americans are significantly less likely to be admitted than similarly qualified Hispanic, Black, or white students. The plaintiffs argue Harvard’s policy violates Title VI of the federal Civil Rights Act, which bans racial discrimination in institutions that receive federal funding. Harvard responds that it does not discriminate against Asian American applicants, argues that the plaintiffs are citing misleading statistics, and contends that race-conscious admission policies are legal. Both the district court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit upheld Harvard’s admissions policy. (Jackson will recuse herself from the case, as she served on Harvard’s Board of Overseers.)
The Harvard case is likely the most known among average Americans. The Asian community, despite its stellar record on every admissions requirement for the Ivy League school, nevertheless faces significant hurdles to be admitted in lieu of lowered standards for black applicants.
While leftists would have everyone believe that affirmative action is fair, an article from the New York Post would suggest otherwise. Their words are shockingly difficult to read; if anyone can defend affirmative action after seeing how unfair its application is to the best and brightest – all in the name of equity – they are either moral frauds or morally corrupt.
It’s been argued that Asian Americans have to score as much as 450 points higher on the SAT to have a similar chance of admission as black students. In 2020, Duke economics professor Peter Arcidiacono found that a black student in the fourth-lowest academic decile has a higher chance of admissions than an Asian in the top decile.
Similar to the Harvard admissions case, Time wrote again of the second case, this time coming out of admissions practices at the University of North Carolina:
"*" indicates required fields
The second case, Students for Fair Admissions v. University of North Carolina, argues that UNC’s consideration of race in admissions not only violates Title VI, but also violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, which extends to public universities. The plaintiffs argue UNC discriminates against white and Asian applicants by awarding “racial preferences” to Black, Hispanic, and Native American students because they are classified by the school as underrepresented minorities. UNC responds that its policies are lawful and are intended to build a diverse, holistic student body.
Nearly two decades ago, the late Sandra Day O’Connor predicted affirmative action would one day no longer be necessary. Out of fairness to all applicants, hopefully that day is swiftly approaching.