WASHINGTON: The US Supreme Court on Thursday outlawed race as a factor in college admissions, saying such a policy violates the American Constitution. The ruling came to the relief and delight of many students of Indian/Asian origin, who, although a minority in the US, have argued that such a policy discriminates against them (and white students) by giving preference to Black, Hispanic and Native American ones.
The apex court ruling split along ideological grounds, with Chief Justice John Roberts writing for the six conservative members, and the three liberals dissenting.
“The student must be treated based on his or her experiences as an individual—not on the basis of race. Many universities have for too long done just the opposite. And in doing so, they have concluded, wrongly, that the touchstone of an individual’s identity is not challenges bested, skills built, or lessons learned but the color of their skin. Our constitutional history does not tolerate that choice,” Roberts wrote.
The ruling overturns several previous decisions by the nine-judge Supreme Court — when its composition was more liberal — upholding race-based admissions to promote diversity. But Asian and Indian-American students have long sought to overturn the policy, arguing that affirmative action impacted them negatively because it constituted a hurdle to merit-based admissions that gave them a fair shot.
Asian/Indian students have long been the elites in the US education system stemming mainly from what is believed to be disciplined upbringing and academic nous. Data from National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) shows that in 2021, 60 percent of Asians between the ages of 18 and 24 were enrolled in college, compared to 38 percent of White youth in the same age cohort, 37 percent for Black youths, 33 percent for Hispanics and 28 percent for Native Americans students.
Many Asian and Indian students backed the lawsuit before the Supreme Court under the aegis of the petitioner, Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA).
Among those supporting the lawsuit is Vijay Jojo Chokalingam, brother of actor-entertainer Mindy Kaling, who caused a stir in 2015 by claiming he pretended to be Black 20 years ago to gain entrance into St. Louis School of Medicine — despite holding a lower GPA than the average incoming student — to demonstrate the “pernicious” effect of affirmative action.
“I know what is at stake better than anyone. I am living proof of the racism and hypocrisy of schools such as Harvard and UNC that discriminate against Asian Americans and White people,” he said at that time.
Former President Barack Obama and his wife Michelle Obama were among those who expressed dismay at the ruling.
“Like any policy, affirmative action wasn’t perfect. But it allowed generations of students like Michelle and me to prove we belonged. Now it’s up to all of us to give young people the opportunities they deserve — and help students everywhere benefit from new perspectives,” the former president said in a statement that provided links to various organizations focused on equality in education.
“”So often, we just accept that money, power, and privilege are perfectly justifiable forms of affirmative action, while kids growing up like I did are expected to compete when the ground is anything but level,” Michelle Obama said, adding,
“So today, my heart breaks for any young person out there who’s wondering what their future holds — and what kinds of chances will be open to them.”
But critics of the affirmative action policy said things had gotten so out of whack that a black student in the 40th percentile of their academic index was more likely to get into Harvard than an Asian student in the 100th percentile.
The ruling came with a strong dissenting notes from Ketanji Brown Jackson and Sonia Sotomayor, black and latina liberals on the bench. “With let-them-eat-cake obliviousness, today, the majority pulls the ripcord and announces ‘colorblindness for all’ by legal fiat… Although formal race-linked legal barriers are gone, race still matters to the lived experiences of all Americans in innumerable ways, and today’s ruling makes things worse, not better,” Jackson-Brown wrote, adding, “But deeming race irrelevant in law does not make it so in life.”
The apex court ruling split along ideological grounds, with Chief Justice John Roberts writing for the six conservative members, and the three liberals dissenting.
“The student must be treated based on his or her experiences as an individual—not on the basis of race. Many universities have for too long done just the opposite. And in doing so, they have concluded, wrongly, that the touchstone of an individual’s identity is not challenges bested, skills built, or lessons learned but the color of their skin. Our constitutional history does not tolerate that choice,” Roberts wrote.
The ruling overturns several previous decisions by the nine-judge Supreme Court — when its composition was more liberal — upholding race-based admissions to promote diversity. But Asian and Indian-American students have long sought to overturn the policy, arguing that affirmative action impacted them negatively because it constituted a hurdle to merit-based admissions that gave them a fair shot.
Asian/Indian students have long been the elites in the US education system stemming mainly from what is believed to be disciplined upbringing and academic nous. Data from National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) shows that in 2021, 60 percent of Asians between the ages of 18 and 24 were enrolled in college, compared to 38 percent of White youth in the same age cohort, 37 percent for Black youths, 33 percent for Hispanics and 28 percent for Native Americans students.
Many Asian and Indian students backed the lawsuit before the Supreme Court under the aegis of the petitioner, Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA).
Among those supporting the lawsuit is Vijay Jojo Chokalingam, brother of actor-entertainer Mindy Kaling, who caused a stir in 2015 by claiming he pretended to be Black 20 years ago to gain entrance into St. Louis School of Medicine — despite holding a lower GPA than the average incoming student — to demonstrate the “pernicious” effect of affirmative action.
“I know what is at stake better than anyone. I am living proof of the racism and hypocrisy of schools such as Harvard and UNC that discriminate against Asian Americans and White people,” he said at that time.
Former President Barack Obama and his wife Michelle Obama were among those who expressed dismay at the ruling.
“Like any policy, affirmative action wasn’t perfect. But it allowed generations of students like Michelle and me to prove we belonged. Now it’s up to all of us to give young people the opportunities they deserve — and help students everywhere benefit from new perspectives,” the former president said in a statement that provided links to various organizations focused on equality in education.
“”So often, we just accept that money, power, and privilege are perfectly justifiable forms of affirmative action, while kids growing up like I did are expected to compete when the ground is anything but level,” Michelle Obama said, adding,
“So today, my heart breaks for any young person out there who’s wondering what their future holds — and what kinds of chances will be open to them.”
But critics of the affirmative action policy said things had gotten so out of whack that a black student in the 40th percentile of their academic index was more likely to get into Harvard than an Asian student in the 100th percentile.
The ruling came with a strong dissenting notes from Ketanji Brown Jackson and Sonia Sotomayor, black and latina liberals on the bench. “With let-them-eat-cake obliviousness, today, the majority pulls the ripcord and announces ‘colorblindness for all’ by legal fiat… Although formal race-linked legal barriers are gone, race still matters to the lived experiences of all Americans in innumerable ways, and today’s ruling makes things worse, not better,” Jackson-Brown wrote, adding, “But deeming race irrelevant in law does not make it so in life.”