海角大神

The Supreme Court has agreed to review a challenge to the consideration of race in college admission decisions, often known as affirmative action. With three new conservative justices on the court since its last review, the practice may be facing its greatest threat yet.

The court said Monday it would consider a聽pair of lawsuits聽alleging that Harvard University and the University of North Carolina discriminate against Asian American applicants. The practice has been reviewed by the court several times over the past 40 years and has generally been upheld, but with limits.

A look at the case:

What are race-conscious admissions policies?聽

When colleges sort through their applicants deciding which ones to admit, some consider race along with grades and a host of other factors like athletics and community service. Some schools have used the practice for decades as a way to address racial discrimination against Black students and others who were long excluded from America鈥檚 colleges. Today, supporters say it鈥檚 an important tool that helps bring a diverse mix of students to campus, while opponents say it amounts to its own form of discrimination.

Most colleges don鈥檛 disclose whether they consider race, but the practice is believed to be limited to a small fraction of schools. Some estimates put it at a few hundred of the nation鈥檚 6,000 colleges, mostly at more selective colleges.

Most states allow affirmative action but nine have outlawed it, including California, Florida, and, most recently, Idaho, which聽banned it in 2020.

What鈥檚 the latest challenge?聽

The Supreme Court is taking up two lawsuits filed by Students for Fair Admissions, a Virginia-based group that says race should play no part in the admission process. The group is led by Edward Blum, a legal strategist who has spent years working to rid racial considerations from college admissions.

In its lawsuits, the group argues that Harvard and UNC intentionally discriminate against Asian American applicants. Examining six years of data at Harvard, the group found that Asian American applicants had the strongest academics but were admitted at the lowest rates compared to students of other races.

It also found that Harvard鈥檚 admissions officers gave Asian Americans lower scores on a subjective聽鈥減ersonal鈥� rating聽designed to measure attributes such as likeability and kindness.

A federal judge in 2019聽upheld Harvard鈥檚 admissions practices, saying it was 鈥渘ot perfect鈥� but passed constitutional muster. The judge said race-conscious practices always penalize groups that don鈥檛 get an advantage, but they鈥檙e justified 鈥渂y the compelling interest in diversity鈥� on college campuses.

An appeals court聽upheld the ruling聽in 2020.

The group brought similar claims against UNC, saying its process disadvantages white and Asian American students. A federal judge聽sided with the university聽last year.

In its appeal to the Supreme Court, the group asked the panel to review both cases and also to overturn the court鈥檚 2003 decision in Grutter v. Bollinger, which upheld admissions policies at the University of Michigan鈥檚 law school. That decision cleared colleges to consider race if it鈥檚 done in a 鈥渘arrowly tailored鈥� way to serve a 鈥渃ompelling interest.鈥�

The group鈥檚 appeal argued that the Grutter decision 鈥渆ndorsed racial objectives that are amorphous and unmeasurable and thus incapable of narrow tailoring.鈥�

What has the Supreme Court said about聽affirmative action?聽

Race-conscious policies have gone before the Supreme Court several times dating to the 1970s and have generally been upheld, with some limits.

Racial quotas that reserve a certain number of seats for minority students have been deemed unconstitutional, but the court has said colleges can consider race as long as it鈥檚 one of many factors in the decision.

Students鈥� race can be used as a 鈥減lus factor鈥� to give them an edge, but it can鈥檛 be the defining factor, the court has said. Schools must be able to show they consider race in a 鈥渘arrowly tailored鈥� way, and that there is no race-neutral approach that would meet the same objective of increasing student diversity.

The court last examined affirmative action in 2016, when it聽upheld the admissions process聽at the University of Texas. That suit, also orchestrated by Mr. Blum, was filed by a white Texan who was denied admission to the university.

What are the politics?聽

The Trump administration sided with Mr. Blum in the Harvard case, saying in 2018 that the school鈥檚 process聽鈥渕ay be infected with racial bias.鈥澛燭he administration also聽rescinded an Obama-era policy聽encouraging schools to consider race, and it filed its own lawsuit accusing Yale University of discriminating against Asian American and white applicants.

The Biden administration later dropped the Yale lawsuit and supported Harvard against Mr. Blum, urging the Supreme Court not to take up the case.

Meanwhile, the court has shifted further to the right, with three new conservative justices appointed by former President Donald Trump.

What is the possible impact?聽

Affirmative action backers hope the court leaves things as they are, giving colleges flexibility to consider race within certain bounds. Opponents hope for a sweeping decision that would remove race from the admission process entirely.

Eliminating the practice would send shockwaves across American higher education and leave many schools scrambling to find other ways to promote diversity. Some colleges say that, without considering race, they would expect to see a decrease in their Black student populations.

Opponents say ending affirmative action would make the process fairer, and some say colleges could preserve racial diversity by giving an advantage to low-income students.

Between both extremes are a wide range of possible options. The court could add further restrictions on the practice, for example, or it could raise the standard of proof colleges must meet to show they鈥檙e within constitutional bounds.

What are people are saying?聽

Mr. Blum welcomed the court鈥檚 announcement, saying he hopes the justices will end racial considerations at all colleges. In a statement, he added that Harvard and UNC have 鈥渉ave racially gerrymandered their freshman classes in order to achieve prescribed racial quotas.鈥�

Harvard President Lawrence Bacow vowed to defend the school鈥檚 use of race as one of many factors, saying it 鈥減roduces a more diverse student body which strengthens the learning environment for all.鈥�

Several groups representing students of color denounced the court鈥檚 decision to get involved. NAACP Legal and Educational Defense Fund director Sherrilyn Ifill said it 鈥渢hreatens the nation鈥檚 ideals of equality.鈥�

In a statement, she said holistic, race-conscious admissions processes 鈥渕itigate systemic barriers to educational opportunities faced by many Black students and other students of color, ensuring that all hard-working and qualified applicants receive due consideration.鈥�

Some other groups applauded the news. Mike Zhao, president of the Asian American Coalition for Education, said Americans should have equal opportunity to achieve success 鈥渢hrough hard work, determination and initiative.鈥�

鈥淚t鈥檚 time for the U.S. Supreme Court to step up to protect our constitutional rights,鈥� he said in a statement.

This story was reported by The Associated Press.