In the cases Students for Fair Admissions v. President and Fellows of Harvard and Students for Fair Admissions v. University of North Carolina that challenged the lawfulness of race-conscious admissions programs, the Supreme Court of the United States issued its decision on June 29, 2023, ruling that the consideration of race among the factors in admitting students to universities is 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 Ruling’s Scope and Implications
While the original court cases focused attention on undergraduate admissions, the court’s ruling applies to all programs at public and private colleges and universities that involve an admissions decision, regardless of the student population involved.
- Applies to all academic programs. In addition to undergraduate programs, it applies to admissions for graduate and medical programs, certificate programs, and programs for K-12 students. The decision states that for these programs, while the goal of a diverse student body is commendable, consideration of “race for race’s sake” is unlawful.
- 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.” For admission to its degree programs, Brown has long practiced a holistic, or “whole person” review of each applicant in the admission process, and the majority opinion of the court constituted a strong endorsement for this individualized review, clarifying that nothing limited consideration of an individual's personal experiences related to race.
- Does not apply to other diversity factors in admission. The decision is only applicable to consideration of race in admission decisions — it does not affect other factors considered in admission decisions that relate to the diversity of the student body, such as veteran status, geography, socioeconomic background or first-generation status.
- Does not affect affinity programs or activities, provided there is no race criterion. As in the past, race-themed programs, activities and affinity centers remain permissible, provided that race is not an eligibility criterion for participation. Similarly, race cannot be a factor in the eligibility of students to receive awards, prizes, internships or campus jobs.
- No effect on employment. Brown’s employment practices remain unchanged 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, schools can actively work to increase the diversity of their applicant pools for faculty, staff and postdoc positions, but cannot take into account any of the factors listed above in the actual hiring decision.