Affirmative Action Rejection of Affirmative Action Draws Strong Reactions From Right and Left
Democrats lamented the development, while conservatives applauded the Supreme Court’s 6-3 decision that could fundamentally alter college admissions practises nationwide.
A significant affirmative action precedent was effectively overturned by the Supreme Court.
The decision makes it more difficult for high school pupils to apply to colleges.
Republicans and Democrats both criticised the affirmative action verdict in Congress.
On Thursday in Washington, demonstrators in favour of and against affirmative action gather close to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court found on a 6-3 majority that Harvard and the University of North Carolina’s racial admissions policies are unconstitutional.Credit…The New York Times’ Kenny Holston
US Supreme Court limits affirmative action in college admissions: What this means
In a significant defeat to affirmative action programmes, which were established decades ago and intended to expand the underrepresented minority groups on campuses, the US Supreme Court invalidated the University of North Carolina’s and Harvard’s race-conscious admissions practises.
According to the New York Times, the US Supreme Court declared on June 29 that Harvard and the University of North Carolina’s racial admissions policies were illegal.
This decision significantly limits affirmative action, a practise that has long been a cornerstone of American higher education, at colleges and universities across the country.
According to the NYT, it is anticipated to cause a flurry as institutions review their admissions procedures.
It could also hamper diversity initiatives elsewhere, reducing the pool of minority candidates and making it more difficult for companies to take race into account when recruiting.
The U.S. Supreme Court effectively banned racial preference admission policies at colleges and institutions across the nation on Thursday in a landmark ruling.
In Washington In a significant victory for conservative activists, the Supreme Court on Thursday invalidated affirmative action policies at Harvard and the University of North Carolina, putting an end to the systematic consideration of race in admissions.
The Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution is violated by both programmes, the court found, and as a result they are both illegal. In the UNC case, the result was 6-3, and in the Harvard case, when liberal Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson was recused, the vote was 6-2.
What the apex court said
The judges who decided the UNC case divided 6-3, with all three being liberals. A 6-2 split in the Harvard decision resulted from Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson’s disqualification.
“Harvard and UNC admissions programmes cannot be reconciled with the guarantees of the Equal Protection Clause,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in a majority opinion, referring to the US Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection under the law.
Supreme Court guts affirmative action, effectively ending race-conscious admissions
The court effectively overruled Grutter v. Bollinger’s 2003 decision, which stated that because colleges had a compelling interest in maintaining diverse campuses, race could be taken into consideration when making admissions decisions.
In doing so, the court overturned decades of precedent, including a decision from 1978 that supported taking racial preferences into account in a limited way when deciding who gets into a university in an effort to end historical discrimination against Black people and other minority groups.
The U.S. Supreme Court effectively banned racial preference admission policies at colleges and institutions across the nation on Thursday in a landmark ruling.
The six-justice conservative supermajority overturned Harvard and University of North Carolina admissions policies in a judgement that was ideologically divided.
The ruling overturns decades of precedent that had been sustained throughout the years by tiny Supreme Court majorities that included justices who had been selected by Republicans.
It eliminates the option for public and private schools and universities to consider race as one of several considerations when determining which of the qualified applicants is to be admitted, which is something that most feel they still need to do.
The majority opinion was written by Chief Justice John Roberts, a lifelong opponent of affirmative action policies, and mandated the use of colorblind admissions standards by all schools and universities in the country.
Opposing view
President Bollinger of Columbia University, who has been a strong supporter of affirmative action initiatives for 30 years, said: “It feels sad.
“By further entrenching racial inequality in education, the very foundation of our democratic government and pluralistic society,” she added, “the Court subverts the constitutional guarantee of equal protection.”
In fact, there has been a significant decrease in minority admissions, especially those of African Americans, in those regions where affirmative action has been abolished. When a state referendum outlawed the use of race in college admissions decisions in 2016, Melissa Murray, an associate professor of law at NYU, served as the University of California Berkeley’s acting dean in 2016 and 2017.
As a result of the admissions criteria change and African American students’ refusal to attend Berkeley under those circumstances, there was an immediate decline in the number of African American students, according to her. “People dislike being in the spotlight. Since there is some solace in numbers, recruiting was extremely challenging for a very long time.
According to her, the situation worsened to the point where she had to request permission from the president of the state university system to enrol African American students in groups rather than “sprinkling” them throughout the class. This allowed minority students to express their opinions freely when racial issues were brought up.
What Does This Ban Mean for College Admissions?
Since Bakke, the Supreme Court has heard several issues involving racial preferences in admissions, with Harvard and UNC being the most recent. Both of these cases were led by Edward Blum, a conservative legal activist who opposes the use of race and ethnicity in American society. Blum was also involved in a previous, unsuccessful attempt to get the Supreme Court to address a similar issue in Fisher v. University of Texas in 2016.
Door is left slightly open
Additionally, the court notably left open the potential that the country’s military schools would be able to maintain their effective affirmative action programmes, which have produced a very diverse officer corps, due to their “distinct interests.”
According to University of California Berkeley professor Jerome Karabel, “that issue is so sensitive because it raises the question of national security that the court has backed away from following its own logic.”
He points out that a similar argument might be made in favour of police departments looking to diversify their ranks so that an almost all white force wouldn’t be policing a town with a significant Black population.
But diversity will no longer be a valid justification for taking race into account at the nation’s schools and universities.
Majority opinio
He claimed that for far too long, “many universities have erroneously concluded that the touchstone of an individual’s identity is not challenges overcome, skills developed, or lessons learned, but the colour of their skin.
That choice is not permitted by the history of our constitution.
Roberts, on the other hand, cited the court’s 2003 ruling upholding the validity of affirmative action plans and said that Justice Sandra Day O’Connor had signalled that there might need to be a stop at some point in the future in her opinion writing for the court at the time. Since then
Roberts, on the other hand, cited the court’s 2003 ruling upholding the validity of affirmative action plans and said that Justice Sandra Day O’Connor had signalled that there might need to be a stop at some point in the future in her opinion writing for the court at the time. The moment has arrived, according to Roberts.
How the case came to be
The court’s rulings concerned two prestigious institutions: Harvard, the oldest private university, and the University of North Carolina, the oldest public university.
The reason Blum, the anti-affirmative action campaigner, probably selected these prominent colleges as his legal targets was because of their elitist reputation.
Black undergraduate students were not allowed into UNC until 1955, and even then, it had to comply with a court ruling. Contrarily, Harvard became the standard for affirmative action policies in 1978 after the Supreme Court noted that the university’s consideration of race was comparable to other factors it used to assure a diverse student body.
The court ruled at the time that race could be one of many considerations made by the school, just as other characteristics such as geography, being raised on a farm, having exceptional accomplishments in everything from science to athletics, or being a so-called legacy student—the child of a Harvard alumnus—were also taken into account.
What the public thinks
Consternation may have followed Thursday’s ruling in some quarters, but public opinion on affirmative action differs from that of abortion, where almost every poll reveals that the public is utterly opposed to the court.
The public’s views on affirmative action
are more complex and divided. Polls on the matter are divided: while some show more than 60% support for affirmative action policies, others show less than 50%.
In fact, in liberal California, for instance, 57% of voters opposed reintroducing affirmative action in the state’s public schools and universities in the 2020 election.
Administrators of college admissions claim that no other criterion, such as class, economic status, or programmes that guarantee admission to students who rank in the top 5% or 10% of their high school class, has been found to be as effective in increasing the number of Black and Latino students.\
Which academic institutions take race and ethnicity into account?
While many colleges keep the specifics of their admissions procedures a secret, selective schools that reject the majority of applicants are more likely to take race into consideration.
According to a 2019 poll by the National Association for College Admission Counselling, around a quarter of institutions said that race had a “considerable” or “moderate” impact on admissions decisions, while more than half claimed that race had no bearing at all.
Arizona, California, Florida, Idaho, Michigan, Nebraska, New Hampshire, Oklahoma, and Washington are the nine states that have outlawed the use of race in admissions procedures at public schools and universities.
Which is affirmative action?
In order to expand chances for historically underrepresented groups in fields including employment, education, and contracting, a set of laws and practises known as affirmative action is used.
These regulations may establish employment or admittance caps, offer outreach and training initiatives, or give contracts to enterprises run by people of colour.
Some people contend that affirmative action is required to remedy historical discrimination, while others contend that it is wrong to treat some groups preferentially.
Affirmative action has been the subject of multiple Supreme Court decisions, and the law surrounding it is continuously developing.
What is the policy of affirmative action quizlet?
Affirmative action is a practise that tries to provide previously marginalised groups more chances. It is frequently utilised in government procurement, hiring for jobs, and college admissions.
Affirmative action comes in two primary forms:
Affirmative action remediation is intended to make up for prior discrimination. This kind of affirmative action is typically implemented in institutions or businesses with a history of discrimination to raise the proportion of minority students or workers.
Affirmative action that looks ahead is intended to stop discrimination in the future. To guarantee that all groups have an equal opportunity to engage in society, this kind of affirmative action is frequently adopted.
What is affirmative action called in India?
Reservation is the term used in India for affirmative action. Members of historically marginalised groups, such as Scheduled Castes (SC), Scheduled Tribes (ST), and Other Backward Classes (OBC), have seats reserved in government employment, educational institutions, and political representation under this quota system.
What is at issue in the current litigation?
Two lawsuits brought by Students for Fair Admissions, an organisation led by Edward Blum, a conservative legal strategist who has spent years opposing affirmative action, were determined by the Supreme Court.
Asian American applicants were allegedly subjected to unlawful discrimination under Harvard’s admissions policy, according to one lawsuit.
The University of North Carolina is accused of unlawfully discriminating against candidates who are white and Asian American, according to the other.
The schools disagreed, claiming that only a small percentage of instances use ethnicity as a deciding factor and that prohibiting the practise would result in a major decrease in the number of minority students enrolled.
What is a affirmative answer?
An affirmative response is one that expresses consent or agreement. When something is confirmed, a “yes” or other affirmative statement is frequently used. Saying “Yes, I do” in response to the question “Do you like cake?” is an example of a positive response.
How to RENEWAL ONLINE PASSPORT
https://argusrad.com/how-to-renewal-your-passport-2023-best-online-passport-renewal-process/