Lecture Notes: Students for Fair Admissions Case

Introduction

• Case: Brought against Harvard University and the University of North Carolina.
• Argument: Use of race in college admissions is unconstitutional.
  • Cited under the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment and Title VI.
• Objective: Overturn Supreme Court precedent in the Grutter case, which allowed limited use of race in admissions.

Historical Context

• Supreme Court's Role: Has been addressing this issue for decades.
  • Balances university arguments and constitutional concerns.
• Grutter Case: Acknowledged diversity as a compelling state interest.
  • Recognized harm of racial categorization.
  • Allowed for temporary use of race in policies.

Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA)

• Organization: Nonprofit representing Asian-American students denied admission to Harvard.
  • Claim: Harvard's admissions program treated them unfairly.
  • Impact: Increase of certain demographics led to decrease of others.

Legal Framework

• Harvard: A private university; 14th Amendment protections apply via Title VI.
  • Title VI: Civil Rights Act provision against discrimination by federal fund recipients.
• Harvard's Argument: Admissions policy constitutional under Grutter.
  • Historical Basis: Referenced in Bakke case as holistic, considering race as one of many factors.

Supreme Court Decision

• Majority Opinion: Six justices found Harvard and UNC engaged in unconstitutional race discrimination.
  • Violation: Of Title VI and 14th Amendment Equal Protection Clause.
• Dissenting Opinion:
  • Argued against race-blind policies in a discriminatory society.
  • Supported race-conscious policies for promoting integration and harmony.
  • Justice Sotomayor highlighted the need for support for some individuals.

Key Arguments

• Majority: Discrimination is unlawful regardless of intent.
  • Race-conscious policies with exclusionary effects are unconstitutional.
• Dissenting Justices: Advocated for the necessity of some race-conscious policies.
  • Believed such policies provide societal benefits.

Conclusion

• Implication: Majority underscores the unlawfulness of race-based exclusion, even with beneficial intentions.
• Ongoing Debate: Balancing equal protection with societal equity and diversity goals.