Key Points
- The US Supreme Court on Thursday banned the use of race and ethnicity in university admissions.
- President Joe Biden expressed his “severe disappointment,” and criticised the justices.
- The court’s conservative majority has already demonstrated its readiness to scrap liberal policies.
In a significant setback to a long-standing practice that enhanced educational opportunities for African-Americans and other minorities, the United States Supreme Court has banned the use of race and ethnicity in university admissions.
One year after , the court’s conservative majority again demonstrated its readiness to scrap liberal policies set in law since the 1960s.
The ruling against “affirmative action,” delivered by a court heavily influenced by three justices appointed by Donald Trump during his presidency, drew cheers from conservatives but was blasted by progressives.
The US Supreme Court has banned the use of race and ethnicity in university admissions. Source: AAP, EPA / Shawn Thew
President Joe Biden expressed his “severe disappointment,” and criticised the justices as “not a normal court”.
“Discrimination still exists in America,” he said at the White House.
“I believe our colleges are stronger when they are racially diverse.
“However, in an interview with MSNBC, he pushed back on liberal demands to reorganise the powerful Supreme Court, including by adding to the nine justices, all of whom serve lifetime appointments.”
“That may do too much harm,” he said.
“If we start the process of trying to expand the court, we’re going to politicise it maybe forever in a way that’s not healthy.”
President Joe Biden said discrimination still exists in the US, following the Supreme Court’s university race admission ban. Source: AAP / Manuel Balce Ceneta
What did the justices rule on affirmative action?
The justices broke six to three along conservative-liberal lines in the decision, seen as a heavy defeat to efforts to expand diversity in school admissions and business and government hiring.
Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the majority opinion that while affirmative action was “well-intentioned” it could not last forever and amounted to unconstitutional discrimination against others.
“The student must be treated based on his or her experiences as an individual – not on the basis of race,” he wrote.
The court said that universities were free to consider an applicant’s background – whether, for example, they grew up experiencing racism – in weighing their application over more academically qualified students.
But deciding primarily based on whether the applicant is white, black, or other is itself racial discrimination, the chief justice wrote.
“Our constitutional history does not tolerate that choice,” he said.
In a scathing rebuttal, Justice Sonia Sotomayor accused the majority of being colourblind to the reality of “an endemically segregated society”.
“Ignoring race will not equalise a society that is racially unequal,” she wrote.
Affirmative action enhanced educational opportunities for African-Americans and other minorities. Source: AAP, AP / Mariam Zuhaib
Elite universities sued over Asian American treatment
The court sided with an activist group, Students for Fair Admissions, that sued the oldest private and public institutions of higher education in the country – Harvard University and the University of North Carolina (UNC) – over their admissions policies.
The group claimed that race-conscious admissions policies discriminated against Asian Americans competing to enter the two universities.
Harvard and UNC, like a number of other competitive US schools, consider an applicant’s race or ethnicity as a factor to ensure a diverse student body and representation of minorities.
Such affirmative action policies arose from the Civil Rights Movement in the 1960s, aiming to help address the legacy of discrimination against African Americans.
Some conservatives argue that the policy has outlived its need due to significant gains by black people and other minorities.
“This is a great day for America,” said Mr Trump, who often celebrates his success in building the court’s conservative majority.
But the ruling was another major setback to progressives after the decision guaranteeing a woman’s right to abortion.
The end of federally guaranteed abortion rights almost immediately led to half of the 50 states banning or severely curtailing the practice.
The affirmative action ruling could have the same effect on many states and institutions, halting programs designed to give disadvantaged minorities extra consideration in the competitive admissions process.
