College in Court: Harvard and UNC’s Affirmative Action Cases and what it means for future admissions

Outside Harvard’s Harry Elkins Widener Library, a group of students congregate to engage socially. Source for image: The Forum

The month of November for colleges is a time where students make their final projects, prepare presentations, and study for their final exams. Unlike other fall semesters, however, colleges themselves are receiving an examination of their own – in court. Beginning in 2014, Students for Fair Admissions, a nonprofit organization whose stated goal is ensuring students are given equal chance at admissions in their college selection process, have successfully brought a case against the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill(UNC), and Harvard University over affirmative action (AA). Recently, the Supreme Court has decided to split the two cases to hear them individually, being that while they may comprise similar subjects, they subsist over different realms.

For some years, universities have implemented affirmative action policies into their selection processes as a way of increasing overall campus diversity. The idea is that a college student’s experience will naturally be more enhanced when they are surrounded by those of different backgrounds, cultures, and experiences, thus adding to their overall learning. As is known, college is not only a place where one goes to pursue a higher education, but as well as an environment where one immerses themselves with their fellow students and professors, making lasting connections and relationships. However, this comes at the possible expense of turning potential acceptees to universities away for the sake of having this diversity. This case will then decide whether colleges may continue to use affirmative action, or rely on other admissions practices for incoming students. The differences between the two cases are substantial, enough so that they have been divided into two hearings. Harvard has been accused of implementing an affirmative action policy that has negatively affected Asian American applicants under Article VI of the Civil Rights Act. Meanwhile, UNC’s affirmative action policy has been accused of affecting White and Asian American applicants under the 14th Amendment of the Constitution, specifically the equal protection clause under the law. The stark differences between these two is the nature of the colleges. Harvard is a private institution, whereas UNC is a state university and thus has more constitutional constraints. A key to this lies in the split decision: if the decisions differ between the two hearings, it may mean that private institutions can continue the practice where the public cannot, or vice versa. These decisions themselves will affect not only Harvard and UNC, but many other colleges across the U.S. A study from Harvard shows that almost 40% of all universities and colleges use affirmative action in their admissions process. 

The outcome of the case remains unclear, yet speculation can suggest one outcome over another. The recent decision in the Dobbs v Jackson case over the summer removed the right to abortion on a federal level. Now, the individual states are left to decide its allowance. The backlash from the Court’s decision in the Dobbs case may sway a vote from the majority, but it is more likely to assume the Court will vote to remove affirmative action on both private and public universities because of the bench’s conservative swing. The cases made by the colleges themselves may contend to defeat the Court’s purpose, arguing that up to the year 2016, many affirmative action cases were passed through the court system and their decisions have continued to be upheld. Harvard themselves have since denied affirmative action stances, arguing on grounds of a flawed analysis of their admissions being used against them, while UNC has admitted to affirmative action policies but argued on the benefits of diversity. 

Should the case be ruled in favor of Students for Fair Admissions, it will lead, as evidence has been shown on a state level where affirmative action was abolished, to a lower acceptance rate for minorities by as much as 5% into places of higher education. While seeming a low statistic, when taken into consideration that minorities tend to already make up a lower portion of admissions, this possible decision seeks to degrade that number further. It may however be suggested that tension from the general public, which remains rampant still after the Dobbs decision, might pressure the Court in an attempt to sway their vote. The decision itself will likely last a number of months, ultimately being delivered in Spring or Summer of 2023. 

The question comes down to the value of diversity, particularly for UNC and how its well natured goal, which it argues it requires affirmative action to achieve, weighs against the contention of fairness for admissions. For UNC’s most recent class, they have self-identified as 65% Caucasian, 22% Asian American, 10% African American, 10% Hispanic, and 1% Native American. Such statistical data may be used in the Court, demonstrating that while their practices allow for more diversity on campus, it is not so glaringly obvious as a 20% makeup of each. Despite bias, both in regard to a Justice’s own political affiliation as well as public outcry, it is the position of each justice to rule fairly and implicitly upon each case, adhering to the wording and intent of the Constitution. What that means for the makeup of the class of 2027 is yet to be seen.