Judgments

Student Of Fair Admission Vs. Harvard : Consideration Of Race In Admission To Colleges Are Unconstitutional

The Supreme Court of USA in Student for Fair Admission, Inc Vs. President and Fellows of Harvard College (Nos. 20–1199 and 21–707) has held that consideration of race in admission to Harvard and University of North Carolina (UNA)  can not be reconciled with Equal Protection Clause.

What were facts of Students of Fair Admission Vs Harvard ?

Harvard College and University of North Carolina (UNA)  are two of the oldest universities in USA. These universities consider various factors while admitting a student in their programme.  Race  is one the factor which is also considered for admission.

Student for Fair Admission (SFFA) , a non-profit organization working with the objective of defending human and civil rights, challenged admission procedure of Harvard College in law suit filed before Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. SFFA had filed another law suit against admission procedure in UNA before the District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina.  The trial courts had upheld the consideration given to race in admission process in Harvard and UNA and found the same is covered under various precedents of the Supreme Court.

SFFA challenged the findings of the trial courts before the Supreme Court which reversed the findings of the Trial Court.

What were findings of the Supreme Court in Students for Fair Admission vs Harvard ?

The Supreme Court observed that the Fourteenth Amendment grants every person Equal Protection of Laws. Fourteenth Amendment ensures the laws in the States will be same for black as well as white persons. All persons whether colored or white shall stand equal before the laws of states.

The Supreme Court noted that it had  passed a regressive judgment in Plessy Vs. Ferguson wherein separate but equal regime for colored persons was recognized. The Supreme Court in Brown Vs. Board of Education overruled Plessy Vs. Feguson  and ended separate and equal regime for colored persons. Thus all sorts of discrimination against colored persons were put to end by Brown Judgement.

The Supreme  Court observed that exception to Equal Protection Clause is very limited. Such exception has to survive two step examination called “strict scrutiny”. Firstly,  whether the racial classification is used to further compelling government interest. Secondly, whether government’s use of race is “narrowly tailored” i.e. necessary to achieve that interest.

In Regents of Univ. of Cal. v. Bakke the Supreme Court has forbidden two track quota system by fixing numbers for any racial group but allowed racial diverse student body for educational benefits. The view in Bakke was approved in Grutter v. Bollinger but the Court also expected that after 25 years racial preferences will not be required.

The Court observed that race based admission programme does not pass the “strict scrutiny”  test. The objectives of race based admission programme that it will train future leaders, acquire new knowledge base on diverse outlooks, promote robust marketplace of ideas and promote engaged and productive citizen are immeasurable and can not be reviewed judicially.  The Court  recognized the tradition of giving a degree of deference to a university’s academic decision but the same must exist within constitutionally prescribed limit.

The  Supreme Court also observed that race based admission programme also fail to comply with the command that race may be never used as a “negative”. The First Circuit has found that Harvard’s consideration or race has resulted in fewer admission of Asian American students. The Court also observed that race based admissions also culminate stereotyping of particular race which is contrary of core purpose of the Equal Protection Clause.

Because Harvard’s and UNC’s admissions programs lack sufficiently focused and measurable objectives warranting the use of race, unavoidably employ race in a negative manner, involve racial stereotyping, and lack meaningful end points, those admissions programs cannot be reconciled with the guarantees of the Equal Protection Clause.

What were dissenting opinions ?

Justice Sotomayor and  Justice Jackson filed dissenting opinions wherein they traced the history of discrimination against colored persons in USA. They justified the consideration of race in admission to educational institutions as it promotes diversity and provides opportunity to the discriminated colored persons in USA. These judges were of the opinion that race based admissions  promote the cause of Equal Protection clause.

_______________________________

Mukesh Kumar Suman is an advocate and legal author based at Delhi. He regularly appears before various Judicial Forums including NCLT, NCLAT, High Courts and the Supreme Court. He can be approached at mukesh_suman@outlook.com or +91 9717864570.

Mukesh Kumar Suman

Mukesh Kumar Suman

Mukesh Kumar Suman is an advocate based at Delhi. He has rich experience in civil, criminal, commercial, arbitration and corporate insolvency matters. He regularly appears before District Courts, NCLT, NCLAT, High Court and the Supreme Court. He can be approached at mukesh_suman@outlook.com or +91 9717864570.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *