Supreme Court to Consider Whether Harvard admission practices that were racially sensitive are Constitutional.
Both were heard today by the court. Students for Fair AdmissionsAnd Students for Fair Admissions and the University of North CarolinaThe next term. The future of affirmative action in college admissions, also known as race-conscious practice, will be determined by these high-profile examples.
Harvard is a case about claims that Harvard’s admission process discriminates against Asian applicants. Asian-American plaintiffs allege that Harvard punishes Asian applicants with the use of Rating personalityThese help to establish a limit on the number of applicants they can accept. According to the plaintiffs, Harvard had rated Asian applicants less highly on attributes such as kindness, courage, and likability. Harvard found that Asians comprise a majority of the workforce. The admitted class comprises 43 percentIf only academics had been considered for admission, it would have been a different story. Asian Americans made up the majority of applicants. 25%Harvard admits 2025 students
Harvard asserts that the plaintiffs did not use a fair analysis. They also claim that there is no discrimination against Asian applicants. The plaintiffs used a flawed analysis and discriminated against Asian applicants. BriefHarvard asked the Supreme Court not to review and defended its race-conscious admissions policy. Harvard stated that the policies helped the university achieve its institution mission, which is to educate “citizens” and “student leaders for the society.”
UNC argues in the UNC case that admissions preferences are given to applicants from underrepresented groups. This discriminates against Asian- and white-leaning students. UNC defends its admissions policies in public StatementPublished on their site: “We prepare students for the next generation in leadership and enhance the quality life for all North Carolinians.” Our graduates are coveted by students, business professionals, and faculty who employ hundreds each year. They believe that the best part of a Carolina education is the variety of the experiences they have.
Edward Blum, an activist in the legal field and founder of Students for Fair Admissions, helped create these cases. The New York Times This describesAs “a matchmaker, bringing together two forces”: Students and other people who feel they have been mistreated under the guise of racial injustice, and Conservative donors, who fund his work, as well as that of high-powered establishment Republican lawyers, who bring the cases to trial. Blum had a significant role in Abigail Fisher’s story. LawsuitAffirmative Action at The University of TexasHowever, it was not successful.
Some surveys show that policies that make admissions more sensitive to race are not popular. You can find more information here. 2019 survey from Pew Research Center found that most Americans—including 62 percent of blacks, 65 percent of Hispanics, 78 percent of whites, and 58 percent of Asians—believed that race should not be a factor in admissions decisions.
Richard Kahlenberg from Harvard has assembled data to show that Harvard is actually able to pay for its debts. IncreasingThe number of admissions from underrepresented minorities by using socioeconomic preferences and dropping legacy preferences. Harvard has admitted a total of 58 students between 2014 and 2019. 33 percentLegacy applicants comprise approximately 5 percent of overall applicants. Harvard’s median student is from a family earning at least $40,000 $168,000In one year, poor students outnumber well-off ones by a ratio 23-to-1.
Oxford University in the United Kingdom has been able IncreasingThe number of students from minority backgrounds on campus is increasing through the outreach programs. This is despite having an entirely race-neutral admissions process.
A truly diverse student body can have many benefits. This might help to foster tolerance and acceptance. This article is available in English Amicus curiae PetitionFiledBy the Pacific Legal Foundation and the Reason Foundation (which published this site), as well as the Center for Equal Opportunity, Chinese American Citizens Alliance, and other parties. The harm of racial prejudices can be justified by none of the benefits claimed.