With abortion and guns already on the agenda, the conservative-dominated Supreme Court is considering adding a highly successful third question – whether or not to ban race consideration in admissions at University.
Judges could say as early as Monday whether they will hear an appeal claiming Harvard discriminates against Asian-American applicants, in a case that could have nationwide repercussions. The matter would not be debated until the fall or winter.
“It would be a big problem because of the nature of admissions to universities across the country and because of the stakes of having this problem before the Supreme Court,” said Gregory Garre, who has twice defended the program. admission of the University of Texas to the judges.
The presence of three people appointed by former President Donald Trump could prompt the court to take up the case, even if it has only been five years since its last ruling in a higher education affirmative action case.
In that Texas case, the court reaffirmed in a 4-3 decision that colleges and universities can consider race in admissions decisions. But they must do so in a way narrowly tailored to promote diversity, the court said in a ruling that dismissed claims of discrimination from a white candidate. Schools are also responsible for showing why their consideration of race is appropriate.
Two members of this majority of four judges disappeared from the tribunal. Judge Ruth Bader Ginsburg died in September. Justice Anthony Kennedy retired in 2018.
The three dissenters in the case, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, remain on the court. Roberts, a moderating influence on some issues, was a firm vote to limit the use of race in public programs, once writing: “This is a sordid business, it divides us by race.”
The court’s willingness to embark on major abortion and gun rights cases also appears to apply to the court’s new, more conservative composition, as similar appeals had been dismissed in the past.
Like the abortion case, the Harvard case is not divided between appellate courts, which often sparks the High Court’s interest in a case.
The Supreme Court has weighed in on university admissions several times for more than 40 years. The current dispute dates back to its first major affirmative action case in 1978, when Judge Lewis Powell explained the rationale for considering race even as the court prohibited the use of racial quotas in admissions.
In Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, Powell approvingly cited Harvard as “a shining example” of a college that “considers race to achieve the educational diversity valued by the First Amendment.”
Twenty-five years later, Judge Sandra Day O’Connor also invoked Harvard’s plan in her opinion, supporting the University of Michigan law school admissions program.
Now it is Harvard’s agenda in the crosshairs of opponents of race-based affirmative action.
The challenge at Harvard is led by Edward Blum and his students for fair admissions. Blum worked for years to rid college admissions of racial considerations.
The group says Harvard imposes a “racial sanction” on Asian American applicants by consistently rating them lower in certain categories than other applicants and by granting “massive preferences” to black and Hispanic applicants.
Harvard categorically denies that it discriminates against Asian American applicants and says its consideration of race is limited, noting lower courts agreed with the university.
In November, the Boston Federal Court of Appeals ruled that Harvard is looking at breed in a limited fashion, consistent with Supreme Court precedents.
The class that just finished its first year is made up of about a quarter of Asian Americans, 15% black and 13% Hispanic, Harvard says on its website. “If Harvard dropped the race-conscious admissions, African American and Hispanic representation would drop by almost half,” the school told the court, urging it to stay out of the case.
The Trump administration supported Blum’s case against Harvard and also filed its own lawsuit alleging discrimination against Asian Americans and whites at Yale.
The Biden administration has already dropped the Yale lawsuit and will almost certainly take Harvard’s side to the Supreme Court if the case goes ahead.
Lead counsel on the appeal is William Consovoy, who also represented Trump in his unsuccessful attempt to protect his Manhattan District Attorney’s tax returns.
When the court upheld the Michigan Law School curriculum in Grutter v. Bollinger in 2003, O’Connor took note of the quarter century that had passed since the Bakke decision.
“We expect that in 25 years the use of racial preferences will no longer be necessary to promote the interest approved today,” O’Connor wrote.
O’Connor’s timeline defined 2028 as a potential endpoint for racial preferences. A more conservative tribunal than the one in which she sat could advance that expiration date by several years.
Copyright 2021 UK Time News. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Interested in Education?
Receive automatic alerts for this topic.