Understanding SFFA v. Harvard
Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard College signals a radical shift in how the Supreme Court views favoring racial diversity and affirmative action in higher education. Chief Justice John Roberts, writing the majority opinion in SFFA v. Harvard, rejects the use of race as a factor in college admissions, asserting that this practice, previously accepted under prior cases such as Bakke and Fisher (see additional resources), is no longer permissible. Professor Theodore Shaw of UNC Law School explains the evolution of affirmative action and racial diversity programs and the impact of this decision on our understanding of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Affirmative action is a policy designed to give employment and educational consideration to individuals from groups that have been historically underrepresented or disadvantaged. Diversity programs similarly promote racial diversity but do so in an effort to improve the overall learning experience and college culture. The group Students for Fair Admissions argues that both are improper. SFFA sued both Harvard and the University of North Carolina (where Prof. Shaw teaches) claiming that race-conscious admissions programs disadvantaged Asian and Asian-American applicants. These applicants, they claim, were disfavored by the policies because Asians are not statistically “underrepresented” at the elite schools.
Chief Justice Roberts rejected the diversity justifications offered by the universities as insufficient to meet the high burden of “strict scrutiny,” and sided with SFFA. According to Chief Justice Roberts, “both programs lack sufficiently focused and measurable objectives warranting the use of race, unavoidably employ race in a negative manner, involve racial stereotyping, and lack meaningful endpoints.” Roberts finds that the schools may have had good intentions, but their efforts fall short of the standard of the Fourteenth Amendment.
According to Prof. Shaw, there was one notable crack in the wall erected by the SFFA decision barring the use of race in the admissions process. Chief Justice Roberts explained that this decision does not prevent a student from expressing their racial experiences in a personal essay or similar component of a college application. Prof. Shaw discusses what this means for colleges that continue to advocate for diversity, breaks down noteworthy footnotes and dissents, and predicts additional litigation to come.
SFFA v. Harvard – Full Opinion
Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution – “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 – Prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin in programs that receive federal funds.
Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978) – Supreme Court case that declared the use of racial quotas unconstitutional but upheld the use of race as one of many factors in the admission process in order to promote diversity.
Fisher v. University of Texas (2013 & 2016) – Supreme Court case that upheld the University of Texas's race-conscious admissions program, ruling that it satisfied the strict scrutiny standard of review and thus its constitutionality under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Grutter v. Bollinger (2003) – Supreme Court case that upheld the narrowly tailored use of race in admission decisions for the compelling interest of promoting a diverse student body when using a holistic application review process.
