U.S. Supreme Court bans universities from considering students race in admissions 

ANJALI DALAL-WHELAN / NEWS EDITOR

The U.S. Supreme Court banned affirmative action in college admissions on June 29 of this year. The 6-3 vote on two cases, Students for Fair Admissions Inc. v. University of North Carolina and Students for Fair Admissions Inc. v. President & Fellows of Harvard College found Affirmative Action unconstitutional. The ruling stated that affirmative action practices at these universities violated the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. 

Cornell Law School defines affirmative action as “a set of procedures designed to; eliminate unlawful discrimination among applicants, remedy the results of such prior discrimination, and prevent such discrimination in the future.” 

In college admissions, affirmative action allowed colleges and universities to consider prospective students’ races as a factor in determining admission. 

Proponents of affirmative action argue that Black and Latino students have been historically marginalized and underprivileged, leading them to have fewer opportunities such as private education, standardized test prep classes and tutors which are factors that are meant to increase students’ chances at admission to elite colleges. 

Students for Fair Admissions, a nonprofit whose lawsuit resulted in the overturning of Affirmative Action, believes that racial classification in admissions is discriminatory and unconstitutional. Many Asian and white students in the Students for Fair Admissions argue that they were rejected from elite universities such as Harvard and the University of North Carolina because race was a factor in admissions. 

Universities in California provide a glimpse of what colleges could resemble after the discontinuation of affirmative action. Nine states, including California, previously banned affirmative action in public employment and education. In 1996 Californian voters passed Proposition 209 which outlawed preferential treatment based on race, sex, color, ethnicity or national origin. According to a study by UC Berkeley, the first incoming class at California’s most elite public universities were much less diverse. For example, after the ban on affirmative action, Black and Latino enrollment at UCLA and  UC Berkeley fell by 40%.

As a private University, USD was not banned from considering applicants’ race until this summer. On the day of the Supreme Court’s decision, USD President James T. Harris III emailed the USD community, issuing a statement on affirmative action. President Harris described USD’s admission process as a holistic approach, emphasizing the university’s commitment to diversity.  

“We will work together to educate ourselves and our community on the implications of today’s decision and chart a path forward that is within the bounds of the law and firmly guided by our mission, vision, and values,” the email concluded. 

The incoming class of 2027 will be the last class whose college admission process was affected by affirmative action. 

USD first-year Ben Strang was disappointed by the Supreme Court’s decision. 

“Affirmative action was in place for a reason,” Strang stated. “It allowed people of color an opportunity to gain an edge in a system that disproportionately benefits white people. Without affirmative action in place, the system will once again be unfair to those who have been setback from the start.”

USD first-year Xochitl Felix shared a similar feeling of disappointment.

“I do believe the system of affirmative action was flawed, but the intention was good,” Felix said. “White affluent students still had a greater advantage in   terms of  them having accessibility to tutors or prep programs for college, whereas low-income minorities who still perform just as well in school but don’t have opportunities to push their potential are now stripped of the possibility of attending these top schools. I think affirmative action could’ve been reformed, but simply taking the whole concept away will leave high school students of minority identity disappointed.” 

First-year Lily Delahanty believes that the Supreme Court should have focused on other issues in college admissions, rather than affirmative action.

“I believe that the Supreme Court should have looked at the process of legacy admissions before even blinking an eye toward affirmative action,” Delahanty said. Legacy admissions is a preference given by an institution to students who have a family member who is an alumnus.

Despite the ban, there are still ways that some universities are factoring in students’ race to their admission. According to the New York Times, many highly selective colleges “are using words and phrases like ‘identity’ and ‘life experience,’ and are probing aspects of a student’s upbringing and background” in order to understand how race may have created adversity in students’ lives.  

Some workarounds have come under criticism. Columbia Law School added and deleted a video requirement to their application after being accused of attempting to circumvent the affirmative action ban. The controversial Supreme Court decision will impact university admission and diversity across the country.