At issue is whether their use of racial preferences to admit students is a violation of the promise of equal protection offered by the 14th Amendment and the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
the Supreme Court will be hearing two cases regarding affirmative action at Harvard University and the University of North Carolina (UNC). At issue is whether their use of racial preferences to admit students is a violation of the promise of equal protection offered by the 14th Amendment and the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
There’s an excellent chance the Court will decide that the use of affirmative action, which it permitted on a basis that’s limited and time-limited in 2003’s Grutter v. Bollinger, has reached its expiration date. Nineteen years ago, in Grutter, the Court ruled that racial preferences were permissible only if “narrowly tailored” and if institutions took care to give every applicant individualized consideration. Moreover, then-Justice Sandra Day O’Connor wrote for the majority that, “Race-conscious admissions policies must be limited in time.” She added, “[The] Court expects that 25 years from now, the use of racial preferences will no longer be necessary to further the interest approved today.”
Twenty years later, there are grave doubts about whether colleges have actually honored the Court’s insistence that they use racial preferences in a “narrowly tailored” manner and as part of an approach that ensures every applicant is given due consideration. For instance, at Harvard, just 13 percent of Asian students in the top academic decile are accepted, compared to 56 percent of their similarly accomplished black peers. Such numbers can’t help but raise the suspicion that these students are getting something less than a holistic personal assessment.
In Harvard’s case, for instance, it turns out that the abysmal acceptance rate for academically accomplished Asian applicants is due to the poor personal ratings they’re consistently assigned by Harvard’s interviewers (based on subjective factors such as whether they are likable or “widely respected”).
