The U.S. Supreme Court building in Washington, D.C. Photo: Xinhua News Agency
6 to 2! 6 to 3!
According to Xinhua News Agency, on June 29, local time, the US Supreme Court ruled overwhelmingly that Harvard University and the University of North Carolina respectively used race as a factor in admitting students to be unconstitutional.
Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the majority opinion that while the university's goals were "laudable," they still fell short of constitutional standards and were inconsistent with the equal protection provisions of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Roberts also added that Harvard's plan resulted in fewer Asian-American students admitted to the university, violating the criteria of the Equal Protection Clause that "race can never be used as a 'negative factor.'"
This historic ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court ended years of "affirmative action" at universities across the country, and in the longer term, its impact will extend beyond college campuses.
Conservatives won a major victory
The ruling on U.S. college admissions policy was seen as a victory over three liberal-leaning justices over six conservative-leaning justices out of nine justices of the U.S. Supreme Court.
And liberal-leaning justices did express strong opposition. The newest member of the Supreme Court, Biden's appointment of the nation's first black female justice, Cotangi Brown Jackson, recused herself from voting in the Harvard case because she graduated from Harvard, but voiced strong opposition in the University of North Carolina case.
Justice Jackson noted that "rulings will only make things worse, not better" and that "racism will take longer to leave us." Ultimately, ignoring race will only make it more important." Another justice, Sonia Sotomayor, also said the ruling would "consolidate apartheid in higher education."
Since President Kennedy asked government contractors to "take affirmative action" to combat racial discrimination in the '60s, universities across the United States have developed policies to promote diversity in their students.
Over the past 60 years, the university "affirmative action movement" has not been without challenges. In 1978, Alan Barker, a white student, was rejected by the University of California, Davis School of Medicine, despite having a higher score, because the university set racial quotas. The court ruled that race could be incorporated into the admissions process, but prevented universities from setting racial quotas.
In 2003, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that higher education institutions could use the racial factor as a means of achieving diversity in colleges and universities because it represented "compelling government interests."
In 2016, in Abigail Fisher, a white woman, v. University of Texas at Austin, the Supreme Court ruled that ethnicity could continue to be a factor in U.S. college admissions.
During the Trump era, three conservative-leaning judges were sent to the Supreme Court in a row, and the seats tended to the right, and the conservatives held an absolute majority of 6 to 3, finally breaking the tradition of "equal rights" in universities that the Supreme Court had maintained for decades. In this regard, political leanings have more influence on the ruling than legal interpretation.
On April 10, 2017, local time, then US President Trump spoke at the inauguration ceremony when Gorsuch (right) was sworn in as a justice of the US Supreme Court. Gorsuch's inauguration restored the conservative majority to the U.S. Supreme Court. Photo: Xinhua News Agency
Biden criticized the court for being dysfunctional
The U.S. Supreme Court's rulings against Harvard and the University of North Carolina have the most direct impact on Asian-American students.
Student Fair Admissions, a conservative activist group that represents Asian-American students in lawsuits against Harvard, analyzed student records and found that Harvard gave Asian-American applicants lower average scores than other applicants.
Even more conspicuous inequality is the so-called "Asian American tax." That is, all else being equal, Harvard's SAT score requirements for Asian-American students are generally about 130 points higher than those of other ethnic students, and sometimes nearly 500 points higher than African-American students.
The ruling is good for Asian-American students, but it's definitely bad news for Biden — the loss of the college "affirmative action" that the U.S. Supreme Court has upheld since 1978 in his presidency is sure to cast doubt on his ability to support him in turn into account the 2024 presidential election.
One study shows that if the "race" factor in admissions is removed, about a quarter of African-American students at U.S. universities and colleges will be lost to lower-level institutions, and the proportion of African-Americans in the American elite will shrink significantly in the long run.
This time, after the Supreme Court's ruling, Trump shouted "today is a good day for America", but Biden criticized "this is not a normal court" and said that he would let the Department of Education study administrative action to maintain the university's "affirmative action movement."
On April 8, 2022, local time, Ketangi Brown Jackson (center) attended the event with US President Biden and Vice President Harris at the White House. On June 30 of the same year, Jackson was sworn in as an associate justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, becoming the first African-American woman in U.S. history to hold that position. Photo: Xinhua News Agency
Corporate employment may also be affected
The "affirmative action movement" against racial discrimination was first launched by companies that contract U.S. government projects. It remains to be seen whether companies will also suffer after the termination of the university "affirmative action" defendants.
Now large American companies emphasize DEI, that is, diversity, fairness and inclusion, when hiring, and it has also caused turmoil.
Zuckerberg's Meta ran a year-long diversity program that recruited a large number of people. But during this year's large-scale layoffs, some laid-off employees were exposed that after the company recruited them, they were asked to do nothing, and Meta just "collected them like Pokémon cards" until they were laid off.
In addition to Meta, other large technology companies have also been exposed to hiring a large number of employees with diverse backgrounds but only "fake jobs". This practice raises suspicions that it is intended to show political correctness while discouraging competitors from getting useful employees. But for employees who only have "fake jobs", personal rights and interests are also damaged due to the blockage of other development channels.
Another scenario is to prioritize people of color as executives under equal conditions to highlight the diversity and political correctness of the company — the reverse operation of "apartheid."
The U.S. Supreme Court's ruling on the affirmative action movement at the two universities is likely to spur similar litigation in the U.S. business community.
The "affirmative action movement" and DEI policies implemented by American universities and enterprises essentially emphasize outcome justice. But it is clear that this alone does bring diversity, but not justice. This is illustrated by the "racial quota" system at the time of admissions.
Of course, in the reality of serious tears in American society, the US Supreme Court's ruling can hardly become the "good days of America" hailed by Trump, on the contrary, the fierce struggle between the two parties in the United States over the topic of "equal rights movement" has just begun.
Written by / Lifan Xu (Columnist)
Editor / He Rui
Proofreading / Wu Xingfa