chevron-down Created with Sketch Beta.
July 12, 2023 Feature Article

Future Implications of SFFA v. Harvard: Potential Curtailing of Diverse Environments

Marissa Meredith, Author | Tamara P. Nash, Editor
Marissa Meredith

Marissa Meredith

Assistant Professor of Law, Thomas R. Kline School of Law of Duquesne University

In 2003, in the landmark case of Grutter v. Bollinger, the United States Supreme Court built on its earlier decision in Regents of Univ. of Cal. v. Bakke. It clarified the standard necessary for institutions of higher education to establish admission processes that considered race as a factor. Although we have seen advantageous benefits and a rise in minorities joining institutions of higher education throughout the United States, the policy has faced several challenges since this ruling. Recently, in November of 2014, Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA), a nonprofit, filed separate lawsuits against Harvard College and the University of North Carolina, challenging their admissions process. SFFA argued that the institutions’ race-conscious admissions programs violated both Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. At the district court level, the court ruled that Harvard’s and UNC’s admissions programs complied with the Grutter standard and thus were constitutional. The Harvard lawsuit was appealed to the First Circuit, which affirmed the lower court’s decision. However, on June 29th, the United States Supreme Court rendered its decision overruling the lower courts and held that the admissions programs at both institutions violated the Equal Protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Although the Court did not explicitly overturn its ruling in Grutter, it narrowed its application by limiting how race can be considered in the admissions process. Now universities and colleges cannot use race as a standalone factor in the admissions process, but rather it can only be considered if the applicant “discuss[es] how race may have affected his or her life, be it through discrimination, inspiration, or otherwise,” as noted in the majority opinion by Chief Justice Roberts. This effectively renders current race-conscious admission policies void and will require many institutions to reconsider ways to continue to diversify their campuses through a colorblind approach. However, as argued by those who supported upholding affirmative action, a colorblind approach to admissions will likely result in less diverse campuses regardless of efforts.

Before the historic ruling on June 29th, nine states, including California, Arizona, Florida, Idaho, Michigan, Nebraska, New Hampshire, Oklahoma, and Washington, had already banned race-conscious admissions programs in higher education through state legislation. Schools within these states have reported that it has been challenging to maintain racial diversity on their campus, with some noting that their minority populations plummeted significantly after the ban. Furthermore, despite their efforts to invest in diversity pipeline initiatives within their communities, the schools still have not achieved the racial diversity they had before the ban.

Moreover, as Justice Jackson noted in her dissent, “deeming race irrelevant in law does not make it so in life.” Whether the Supreme Court acknowledges it or not, race impacts opportunity in education, the workforce, and society at large. In recent years, higher education has been joined by elementary and secondary schools, businesses, and communities to acknowledge that systematic barriers exist in our world for persons of underrepresented races. Because of this acknowledgment diversity initiatives and pipeline programs grew in an effort to open opportunity. But the Supreme Court’s colorblind mandate threatens the progress of these efforts. Certainly, this case only invalidates race-conscious admissions policies in higher education, but it may cause ripples far greater than merely higher education. How far will the colorblind mandate extend? Are other race-conscious efforts next? Will diversity initiatives and pipeline programs suffer a similar fate simply because of the acknowledged reality of race? Only time will tell.

Marissa Meredith

Assistant Professor of Law, Thomas R. Kline School of Law of Duquesne University

Entity:
Topic:
The material in all ABA publications is copyrighted and may be reprinted by permission only. Request reprint permission here.