On Thursday, June 29, 2023, the Supreme Court reinvigorated its application of strict scrutiny to race-related considerations in college admissions programs. In a 6-3 opinion authored by Chief Justice John Roberts, the Supreme Court ruled that affirmative action policies on Harvard and the University of North Carolina’s (“UNC”) college campuses do not meet the strict scrutiny standard required under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. This recommitment to enforcing the standards of the Fourteenth Amendment is symbolic of the Supreme Court’s larger drive to apply the original intent of the Constitution and statutes. While there is still important work to be done on college campuses, this is a step in the right direction .
Under the Fourteenth Amendment, the courts have created a standard wherein government actors are allowed to offer differential treatments based on certain suspect classifications depending on the standard of review afforded to that classification. For example, to provide differential treatment on the basis of race, the government must meet the highest standard there is, strict scrutiny. Under strict scrutiny, government action can only stand if the action is necessary to achieve a compelling government interest.
The standards, however, are different for different suspect classifications. For example, a government action providing differential treatment on the basis of gender receives intermediate scrutiny. Under intermediate scrutiny, the action must be narrowly tailored to meet an important government function. Lastly, all other types of classifications are presumed to fall under rational basis review. This is the most lenient standard, and the action is presumed valid. All the government needs to show is that the action is reasonably related to a legitimate government interest.
Here, largely due to the federal funding that colleges receive, they are considered to be government actors. Accordingly, their race-based admission practices fall within the strict scrutiny framework. As the Supreme Court has now held these race-based determinations do not meet the strict scrutiny standard and are in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Under the law, we are all supposed to be equal regardless of race. The Supreme Court found, however, that under Harvard’s and UNC’s affirmative action policies, this was not the case. As discussed in the opinion, colleges were employing broad stereotypes as a detriment of certain races. In a powerful summation, the Supreme Court noted, “Many universities have for too long wrongly concluded that the touchstone of an individual’s identity is not challenges bested, skills built, or lessons learned, but the color of their skin.”
As the Supreme Court found, there was no clear endpoint for when student bodies would be sufficiently “diverse” as to stop using racial preferences. Accordingly, the use of race could not be justified on that basis. Further, colleges only have a set number of spots available. Thus, preferencing a student belonging to one race, necessarily disadvantages a student of another race, in direct contradiction to the Constitution. Thus, this could not be considered a necessary action when it would seemingly lead to more harm.
Despite the monumental ruling, the fight will go on. In his opinion, the Chief Justice concluded, saying, “nothing in this opinion should be construed as prohibiting universities from considering an applicant’s discussion of how race affected his or her life, be it through discrimination, inspiration, or otherwise.” Many in academia have already begun interpreting this as a way around the heart of the Supreme Court’s opinion. One such example is Southern Methodist University has already sent an email to its student body outlining its intent to skirt the Supreme Court’s holding. Thus, more challenges may be on the way in the near future.
Further, College campuses continue to have very little diversity of thought. Oftentimes, these campuses serve as echo chambers, wherein dissenting opinions will not be allowed. The result of this is students forcefully being pushed to the left in order to conform with their environment and even to achieve optimal grades.
Thus, the fight will continue. As for now, however, this is a win for America. Colleges can no longer discriminate on the basis of race.
Jared Roberts is a constitutional law attorney at Binnall Law Group. He is licensed in Virginia and Florida.
The views and opinions expressed in this commentary are those of the author and do not reflect the official position of the Daily Caller.
