Students for Fair Admissions v. President and Fellows of Harvard College

-

 

Students for Fair Admissions v. President and Fellows of Harvard College

Unbiased case analysis:

            Harvard College uses an admissions process that considers the race of applicants to determine whether they should be accepted or not. This is a common practice for many colleges in the United States. Harvard College was sued by Students for Fair Admissions over their use of affirmative action. Affirmative action is simply an action that helps specific demographic groups due to the United States’ history of discrimination. A district court ruled in favor of Harvard and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Frist Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision. The case was eventually brought before the Supreme Court. It was initially going to be consolidated with another case, but the Court chose to hear it individually.

            The Court ruled 6-2 in favor of Students for Fair Admissions. Chief Justice John Roberts authored the majority opinion. The Court’s majority brought to attention the specific definition of affirmative action. The Court requires affirmative action to be vague and not require specific goals. For example, a college cannot accept or reject applicants solely to fulfill a quota of 15% African American on their campus. The Court found that Harvard’s use of affirmative action was unconstitutional. Colleges need to be colorblind when considering applicants. The Court’s majority did allow applicants to discuss how race has played a role in their lives during the application process. Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote a dissenting opinion which the remaining justices joined in. Although Justice Ketanji Jackson joined in the dissenting opinion, she was not part of the consideration or decision of this case.

Personal Perspective:

            This is a very difficult and controversial case. Any case involving the topic of race is going to ignite fierce opinions on both sides of the spectrum. Do I agree with the Court’s decision? I am personally torn by it. I completely oppose race being a major factor in college admissions. However, race can play a role in college admissions. A white majority college seeking to be more diverse should be allowed to be more eager to accept minority applicants while also considering other factors. It is very interesting for the Court to depart from a long history of decisions supporting affirmative action. It should be noted the majority’s conservative leaning views. However, past conservative justices have ruled in favor of affirmative action related cases. The Court’s decision might have opened a can of worms that will affect not only colleges but also other institutions and industries.

Unbiased Media Critique:

            This case received widespread media attention from outlets all over the political spectrum. I was hard pressed to find any neutral or truly objective news articles on the case. Everyone had an opinion they wanted to share. Left leaning outlets such as Vox wrote scathing articles on the Court’s “terrible” decision. They completely condemned the decision and went as far as to question the humility of the Court’s majority. Right leaning outlets such as Fox News supported the Court’s decision. They promoted a message of how citizens should respect the Court’s decision. They also focused on the negatives of affirmative action.

Sources:

Students for Fair Admissions v. President and Fellows of Harvard College | Oyez

One Supreme Court decision, two different responses reveal who really respects the law | Fox News

Supreme Court reverses affirmative action, gutting race-conscious admissions : NPR

Affirmative action: The high cost of the Supreme Court’s decision, explained - Vox

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Biden v. Nebraska

-
Image
Unbiased Case Analysis:             During his presidential run Joe Biden promised to cancel up to $10,000 of federal student loan debt per borrower. He kept his word and used executive action to enact his promise. Nebraska and five other states challenged Biden and his forgiveness program. They argued on the grounds that it violated the separation of powers and the Administrative Procedure Act. The district court and U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit dismissed the case. The Supreme Court stepped in to decide on it.             The Court decided 6-3 in favor of Nebraska. The Court found that the Secretary of education does not authority under the HEROES Act “…to establish a student loan forgiveness program that will cancel roughly $430 billion in dept principal and affect nearly all borrowers.” Most of the justices cited the major questions doctrine as their reaso...
Read more

Acheson Hotels, LLC v. Laufer

-
Image
For my first blog post I am going to examine one of the latest cases SCOTUS ruled on: Acheson Hotels, LLC v. Laufer. Unbiased Case Analysis: Deborah Laufer is a disabled woman who checks hotel websites to see if they provide accessibility information required under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). She sued Acheson Hotels after discovering one of their hotel websites failed to provide accessibility information. The district court dismissed her case since she did not plan to visit the hotel. Therefore, she would suffer no injury from the hotel’s lack of accessibility information. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reversed the district court’s decision determining that a lack of intent to visit the hotel did not excuse Laufer from injury. The Supreme Court of the United States agreed to hear the case and rule on it. The Court unanimously voted to vacate the case. The Court found the case to be moot which means it has lost its relevance which no longer neces...
Read more