By Natalie Mojica
On Jan. 24, the Supreme Court agreed to take a case presented by the Virginia-based group Students for Fair Admissions, a nonprofit organization, to decide whether race-based admission practices, otherwise known as affirmative action, are lawful.
Spearheaded by Edward Blum, a financial advisor turned legal entrepreneur, the case challenges the Supreme Court’s precedence towards affirmative action and similar programs. Historically, the Court has ruled in favor of these programs, but with a conservative majority, this could change.
Blum has been a critical part of Supreme Court cases that center on removing race as a component of aspect of American life—from contesting the Voting Rights Act of 1965 in Shelby County, Alabama v. Holder, Attorney General, to attempting to remove affirmative action in 2015 with Fisher v. University of Texas. While his group lost their last affirmative action case, Blum is more confident than ever that the Supreme Court will rule in his favor.
“Most Americans don’t want race to be part of your application to college… your race and your ethnicity should not be something used to help you or harm you in your life’s endeavors,” Blum said in an interview with The New York Times.
The case will focus on Harvard University and the University of North Carolina, meaning the decision will impact private and public universities. Both schools defended their right to consider a student’s race in the application process, claiming it is a valuable tool in creating diverse classes and communities.
“The Supreme Court decision to review the unanimous decisions of the lower federal courts puts at risk 40 years of legal precedent granting colleges and universities the freedom and flexibility to create diverse campus communities. Considering race as one factor among many in admissions decisions produces a more diverse student body which strengthens the learning environment for all,” stated Harvard president Lawrence Bacow.
If the Supreme Court were to rule against affirmative action, it would be overturning its ruling in Grutter v. Bollinger, where it decided “The [University of Michigan’s Law School] race-conscious admissions program does not unduly harm nonminority applicants.”
Advocates of affirmative action insist that it is a necessary institutional device to acknowledge the historical oppression of minority groups and lessen the educational achievement gap.
“Race-conscious admissions policies are a critical tool that ensures students of color are not overlooked in a process that does not typically value their determination, accomplishments, and immense talents,” said president of the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under the Law, which represents students and alumni defending the programs, Damon Hewitt.
Harvard also claimed that if it were to ignore race as a part of the admissions process, representation of Black and Hispanic students would decline instantly. On the other hand, Students for Fair Admissions claimed this same system intent on improving diversity penalizes Asian-American students by giving “massive preference” to Black and Hispanic applicants.
Regardless of the Supreme Court’s decision, it will have a lasting impact on the college admission process. This case will most likely be argued in the fall, and its decision released shortly afterward.
