The Supreme Court of the United States established this Thursday that the country’s universities can no longer take race into account as one of the determining factors in the admissions of students. The resolution ends with an “affirmative action” or positive discrimination that for decades had been tempering racial inequalities in academic institutions.
Although the sentence specifically annuls the admission programs based on race instituted at Harvard and North Carolina universities, its effects extend to the entire higher education system in the country.
In separate votes by 6 votes in favor of the annulment against 2 and 3 against, the conservative majority judges agreed to uphold the appeals that the group Students for Fair Admissions had filed against lower court rulings that approved affirmative action programs authorized by both universities. Progressive Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, the first African-American in US history, abstained in the Harvard case for having served on one of the center’s boards of directors.
The court overturned a 2003 decision in the matter called Grutter v. Bollinger, which at the time reaffirmed the right of colleges to consider race as one of many admissions factors for students.
Nine states have already banned affirmative action in their schools, resulting in a notable decline in black and Hispanic students. For example, the proportion of African-American college students in Michigan or California dropped from 7% to between 3% and 4% since both states banned such admission clauses.
Experts believe that the Supreme Court ruling practically guarantees a future for the American university with more whites and Asians, and fewer blacks and Latinos.
In the North Carolina lawsuit, the plaintiffs alleged that their university was discriminating against white and Asian applicants in order to give priority to blacks, Hispanics and Native Americans. The arguments of the institution in the sense that its regulations promoted educational diversity and were supported by numerous previous resolutions of the Supreme Court itself were of no use.
This Thursday’s sentence is interpreted in the United States as confirmation of the right-wing turn by a Supreme Court that is in fact very leaning towards that side -in a ratio of 6 to 3-, especially after the appointment of three ultra-conservative magistrates by of former President Donald Trump.
The conservative majority of the court made its full power felt exactly one year ago with its historic ruling annulling the right to abortion, which it later seasoned with other resolutions contrary to federal environmental protection regulations and restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms. .
These and other rulings often contrary to the feelings of the social majority, as well as successive scandals of possible influence peddling by some of its members, have severely eroded the prestige of the highest judicial institution in the United States. .
Going into the letter of the sentence, written by the president of the court, John Roberts, the majority of the Supreme Court determined that the admission programs of Harvard and UNC are incompatible with the guarantees of the Equal Protection Clause, that is, with the provision of “equal protection under the law” established by the US Constitution.
Going into the letter of the sentence, written by the president of the court, John Roberts, the majority of the Supreme Court determined that the admission programs of Harvard and UNC are incompatible with the guarantees of the Equal Protection Clause, that is, with the provision of “equal protection under the law” established by the US Constitution.
Roberts qualified that universities may “consider an applicant’s discussion of how race has affected his or her life, whether through discrimination or otherwise. However, the centers “cannot simply establish, through application essays or other means, the regime that we consider illegal today,” she remarked. This can be understood as the possibility that the governing teams hear allegations about racial discrimination from applicants for admission, but never consider such arguments as a mandatory and express factor to be taken into account -as part of the applicant’s score- when decide whether to enter or not.
And it is that students “should be treated based on their experiences as individuals, not based on race,” the president wrote. And the two impeached college programs, he added, “inevitably employ race in a negative way” and “imply racial stereotyping” in a way that violates the Constitution.
Among the dissident opinions of the progressive minority, that of Judge Sonia Sotomayor stood out. For her, the sentence imposed by her six conservative companions “rolls back decades of precedent and momentous advances,” and “further entrenches racial inequality in education: the very foundation of our democratic government and pluralistic society.”
President Joe Biden announced measures to counteract or mitigate the decision of the Supreme Court, of which he said that “it is not a normal court.” While he expressed his “disappointment” over the ruling, the president stressed that the resolution “cannot be the last word” on this matter. And he urged universities to take into consideration “the hardships” that many college hopefuls have had to overcome to get there, including those related to racial discrimination and economic problems. Because it is a fact that “discrimination exists in our country,” he stated three times.
Former President Donald Trump, on the other hand, celebrated the Supreme Court’s resolution: “This is a great day for the nation. People with extraordinary abilities and everything else necessary for success are finally being rewarded. We’re going back to being based on merit, and that’s the way it should be! This is the ruling that everyone was waiting for and longing for,” said the ultra leader.
The race question continues to divide America.
