© Jonathan Ernst & Brian Snyder/ReutersThe Supreme Court Building (left) in Washington, D.C., New President of Harvard University Claudine Gay
"The Harvard and UNC admissions programs cannot be reconciled with the guarantees of the Equal Protection Clause. Both programs lack sufficiently focused and measurable objectives warranting the use of race, unavoidably employ race in a negative manner, involve racial stereotyping, and lack meaningful end points. We have never permitted admissions programs to work in that way, and we will not do so today," wrote Chief Justice John Roberts for the six-justice majority.
However, universities may still consider an applicant's discussion of how race affected his or her life, be it through discrimination, inspiration, or otherwise. Roberts clarified that this does not mean universities can simply establish through application essays or other means the regime declared unlawful by the Court. It means, explained Roberts, "the student must be treated based on his or her experiences as an individual — not on the basis of race."
The liberal justices dissented in both cases. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson only took part in the UNC case as she had been on Harvard's board of overseers.
Justice Sotomayor wrote that the majority "cements a superficial rule of colorblindness as a constitutional principle in an endemically segregated society where race has always mattered and continues to matter."
The cases were filed in 2014 against by Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA). The group, led by the conservative activist Edward Blum, contended that the existing precedent on affirmative action — Grutter v. Bollinger — ought to be overruled and the race-conscious admissions of Harvard and UNC be invalidated.
While Roberts did not explicitly say Grutter was overruled, Thomas wrote in a concurring opinion that the precedent is "for all intents and purposes, overruled."
In the Harvard case, SFFA claimed that the university discriminates against Asian Americans, explaining that they are less likely to receive offers than students of other races who are similarly qualified. The group argued Harvard violated Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, which bars entities that receive federal funding from discriminating on the basis of race.
In the other case, SFFA claimed that UNC discriminated on the basis of race even though it could have achieved diversity by other means. Since UNC is a public university, the group said UNC's admission policy violated the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause.
In both cases, the lower court judges ruled for the universities, upholding their respective admissions policies. Judge Allison Burroughs ruled that Harvard did not intentionally discriminate against Asian Americans and was affirmed by the First Circuit in appeal. Judge Loretta Biggs explained that UNC only uses race as a "plus factor" in admissions and that the university does not have any other practical alternatives.
Grutter, decided in 2003, upheld the race-preferential admissions policies of the University of Michigan Law School. That case largely upheld an earlier precedent — Regents of the University of California v. Bakke — that allowed the consideration of race in admissions as long as a racial quota system wasn't instituted. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor held in Grutter that the Equal Protection Clause did not prevent Michigan from using race-conscious admissions to further a compelling interest — namely, student body diversity.
In SFFA's view, Grutter was a grievously wrong decision that goes against the Fourteenth Amendment and has led to significant negative consequences. On the other hand, the universities urged the Supreme Court to keep Grutter as precedent, arguing they have a strong interest in ensuring a diverse student body and that significant disruption would be caused by an adverse ruling. The Biden administration backed Harvard and UNC in an amicus brief and noted that many other government institutions rely on race-conscious admissions, such as the U.S. military academies.
Roberts clarified that this opinion also does not address race-conscious admissions in the nation's military academies "in light of the potentially distinct interests that military academies may present."
Jeff Zymeri is a news writer for National Review Online. Follow him on Twitter @JeffZymeri
Comment: A long battle come to a proper conclusion. Admission to higher education should be based on merit alone. In a properly functioning society, hard work and ability are rewarded.