Zinger Key Points
- The Supreme Court ruled that affirmative action admission policies at Harvard and UNC are unconstitutional.
- The decision marks a significant setback to efforts to increase racial minority enrollment at American universities.
- Get Monthly Picks of Market's Fastest Movers
In a landmark ruling, the Supreme Court has declared that the affirmative action admission policies of Harvard and the University of North Carolina (UNC), which factored in a prospective student’s race, are unconstitutional.
This decision marks a significant setback to long-standing efforts to increase the enrollment of racial minorities at American universities, CNBC reports.
The Majority Opinion
Chief Justice John Roberts, joined by his five conservative colleagues, wrote the majority opinion. He stated that both Harvard’s and UNC’s affirmative action programs “unavoidably employ race in a negative manner, involve racial stereotyping, and lack meaningful end points.” He added that such admissions programs have never been permitted and will not be allowed now, according to CNBC. The majority determined that the policies of the universities breached the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause of the Constitution.
The Dissenting Voices
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson labeled the ruling as “truly a tragedy for us all” in her dissent. Justice Sonia Sotomayor criticized the decision, stating that it “rolls back decades of precedent and momentous progress.” She argued that the majority’s ruling effectively prohibits the limited use of race in college admissions to achieve critical benefits, thereby cementing a superficial rule of colorblindness as a constitutional principle in a racially segregated society.
The Cases
The ruling addressed two separate but related cases, one for Harvard and the other for UNC. In the Harvard case, the decision was a 6-2 vote, with Jackson abstaining due to her previous service on Harvard’s Board of Overseers until early 2022. In the UNC case, the vote was 6-3, with Jackson, Sotomayor, and Justice Elena Kagan, the court’s third liberal, dissenting.
This content was partially produced with the help of AI tools and was reviewed and published by Benzinga editors.
Photo: Shutterstock
© 2024 Benzinga.com. Benzinga does not provide investment advice. All rights reserved.
Trade confidently with insights and alerts from analyst ratings, free reports and breaking news that affects the stocks you care about.