The Supreme Court of the United States held in the cases Students for Fair Admissions v. President and Fellows of Harvard College and Students for Fair Admissions v. University of North Carolina that both Harvard and the University of North Carolina’s race-conscious admissions programs were unlawful. Chief Justice John G. Roberts wrote for a majority of the Court that the manner in which Harvard and UNC considered race in admissions discriminated on the basis of race in violation of the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. While the goal of a diverse student body was deemed to be “commendable,” the Court held that the benefits are not measurable and thus are not able to be reviewed by a court. Further, the Court held that any race-conscious program must have a defined endpoint, which Harvard and UNC did not establish. The opinion stated that the 25-year term for continuing the use of race in admissions articulated in the Supreme Court’s prior Grutter v. Bollinger decision would be a logical endpoint for allowing the consideration of race in admission decisions. (June 2023 marked 20 years since that previous Court decision.)

The Court’s decision applies to private and public colleges and universities.

The Supreme Court’s decision was effective the date it issued its ruling, June 29, 2023. Associate Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s concurring opinion suggests that it applies to classes matriculating in the fall of 2024.

The Supreme Court held that consideration of “race for race’s sake” is unlawful. Universities may consider “an applicant’s discussion of how race affected the applicant’s life, so long as that discussion is concretely tied to a quality or character or unique ability that the particular applicant can contribute to the university.” The examples from the decision are as follows: “A benefit to a student who overcame racial discrimination, for example, must be tied to that student’s courage and determination. Or a benefit to a student whose heritage or culture motivated him or her to assume a leadership role or attain a particular goal must be tied to that student’s unique ability to contribute to the university. In other words, the student must be treated based on his or her experiences as an individual — not on the basis of race.”

No, the Court’s ruling applies to all programs that involve an admissions decision, regardless of the student population involved. In addition to Brown’s undergraduate program, it applies to admissions for graduate and medical programs, certificate programs and programs for K-12 students.

The issue before the Court was race-conscious student admissions programs. Employment practices remain unchanged by the Court’s decision and are subject to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which prohibits discrimination against job applicants and employees on the basis of race, color, religion, sex and national origin. As in the past, Brown can actively work to increase the diversity of its applicant pool for faculty, staff and postdoc positions, but cannot take into account any of the factors listed above in the actual hiring decision. To assist hiring managers and search committee leaders in recruiting a diverse applicant pool while complying with the law, Brown’s Office of Institutional Equity and Diversity offers detailed guides to diversifying staff searches and faculty searches.

The University is committed to complying with the law, while also sustaining the diversity that is central to Brown’s mission. Brown maintains that advancing diversity is central to achieving the highest standards of academic excellence and preparing our students to grow and lead in a complex world.

Read about the University’s  development of lawful strategies to achieve diversity on the Sustaining Diversity page of this website.

The decision is only applicable to consideration of race and ethnicity in college or university admission decisions.

The University’s commitment to diversity is firm and unchanged as Brown continues to build a diverse and inclusive environment to sustain and strengthen academic excellence in compliance with the law. Efforts to complete and implement departmental DIAPs should continue unabated.

Brown has long practiced a holistic, or “whole person” review of each applicant in the admission process. The majority opinion of the court constituted a strong endorsement for this individualized review, clarifying that nothing in the opinion limited consideration of an individual's personal experiences related to race. Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor's dissenting opinion observed that "today's decision leaves intact holistic college admissions and recruitment efforts that seek to enroll diverse classes without using racial classifications."

The court struck down consideration of race for race’s sake, but made allowances for life experience. Universities may consider an applicant’s discussion of how race affected the applicant’s life, so long as that discussion is concretely tied to a quality or character or unique ability that the particular applicant can contribute to the university. Brown’s essay prompts allow students to describe their background and experiences. Those essay questions can be read on the How to Apply page of the College Admission website.

The University is providing thorough guidance to individuals involved in admissions across campus to support diversity while complying with the law. The Office of the General Counsel has held workshops for admissions officers and other academic and administrative leaders, as well as sessions for members of the community who may operate race-themed programs and activities. The Office of General Counsel is further supporting admissions officers and faculty in establishing operating procedures to ensure knowledge of the law and compliance across all stages of admissions, while also providing guidance on how Brown will continue “whole-person” review of each applicant in the process.

The majority opinion addressed only the question of "whether a university may make admissions decisions that turn on an applicant's race." In August 2023, the U.S. Department of Justice and the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights published frequently  and guidance regarding the Supreme Court’s decision in Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College and Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. University of North Carolina, et al. The guidance made clear that universities can develop and implement strategies for increasing diversity in the student body across all factors, including race and ethnicity, through pipeline programs, pathway programs and target outreach and recruitment from historically underrepresented groups and “underserved communities, including those with large numbers of students of color.”

President Christina H. Paxson announced on Sept. 6, 2023, the appointment of an Ad Hoc Committee on Admissions Policies to examine the University’s admissions practices to ensure they align with Brown’s stated commitments to excellence, access and diversity.

If you operate a program or activity that may be impacted by the court’s decision and have more questions or need clarification, consult with Brown’s Office of the General Counsel by emailing general_counsel@brown.edu.

While the Supreme Court’s decision applies only to admissions, federal law has governed race-themed programs and activities predating the decision. As in the past, race-themed programs, activities and affinity centers are permissible, provided that neither race, ethnicity nor national origin is an eligibility criterion for participation. These programs are permissible for creating a sense of belonging for members of a college or university community, and there is recognition that they may serve as a means to retain large numbers of students of color. Programs may focus attention on supporting individuals or communities of a particular race or background, provided that they have race-neutral eligibility criteria. Similarly, race cannot be a factor in eligibility to receive awards, prizes, internships or campus jobs hosted or sponsored by the institution. Announcements regarding these programs must have a broad scope to reach eligible recipients. No individual may be excluded or treated differently based on their race or ethnicity. For approved program language, please consult with Brown’s Office of the General Counsel by emailing general_counsel@brown.edu for approved program language.

Colleges and universities may not separate individuals based on race for assemblies, gatherings, meetings or club activities hosted or sponsored by the institution. For example, in referring to student clubs and organizations, the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights has stated that “Title VI generally requires schools to ensure that all of their students, regardless of race, have an equal opportunity to participate in any educational programs and activities, including meetings, focus groups and listening sessions.” Clubs, organizations, and affinity groups must also be open to all eligible individuals, regardless of race.

If you operate a program or activity that may be impacted by the Court’s decision or federal law and have more questions or need clarification, consult with Brown’s Office of the General Counsel by emailing general_counsel@brown.edu.