Home » Affirmative Action Programmes Rejected By UN at Harward.

Affirmative Action Programmes Rejected By UN at Harward.

In Washington, The use of Affirmative Action Programmes in the college admissions process across higher education has been significantly changed as a result of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision on Thursday that the use of race in admissions decisions by two prestigious colleges was unconstitutional.

The University of North Carolina and Harvard University’s admissions procedures are unconstitutional under the 14th Amendment, according to a 6-3 ruling by Chief Justice John Roberts, who wrote for the majority.

“Harvard’s and UNC’s admissions programs cannot be reconciled with the guarantees of the Equal Protection Clause because they lack sufficiently focused and measurable objectives warranting the use of race, inevitably employ race in a negative manner, involve racial stereotyping, and lack meaningful endpoints,” Roberts wrote.

Affirmative Action Programmes at Harvard and the UN are Rejected by the Supreme Court.

“For too long, many colleges have reached the incorrect conclusion that a person’s identity is not determined by obstacles overcome, abilities developed, or lessons gained, but rather by the color of their skin. The constitutional history of this country does not permit that option, Roberts continued.

This choice has an impact on higher education in general because UNC is a public university and Harvard is a private institution.
Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson, the three liberal justices, cast dissenting votes.

While the equal protection clause “enshrines a guarantee of racial equality,” Sotomayor wrote the dissenting opinion, contending that the Supreme Court “long ago concluded that this guarantee can be enforced through race-conscious means in a society that is not, and has never been, colorblind.”

She stated, “In so holding, the Court… enshrine[s] a superficial norm of colorblindness as a fundamental principle in an endemically divided society where race has always mattered and continues to matter. “By further entrenching racial inequality in education, the very cornerstone of our democratic government and pluralistic society, the Court undermines the constitutional guarantee of equal protection,”

Harvard and UNC, according to Sotomayor, “have sordid legacies of racial exclusion.” She claimed that the university, whose founders included slaveowners and Klu Klux Klan members, fought integration until it eventually accepted the first Black student in 1963. Further More About Affirmative Action Programmes.

She noted that numerous buildings still contain the names of Ku Klux Klan members and said, “To this day, UNC’s deep-seated legacy of racial subjugation continues to manifest itself in student life.”
Sotomayor pointed out that Harvard’s origins were inextricably linked to slavery and racial subordination.

“Harvard and UNC have reckoned with their past and its lingering effects against this historical backdrop,” she wrote.
Jackson joined the dissenting viewpoint but withdrew from the decision’s consideration of Harvard.

Jackson, a graduate of Harvard College and Harvard Law School who most recently served on the Harvard Board of Overseers, one of the two governing bodies for Harvard University, took part in the discussion of the UNC case but not the Harvard case.
The choice was made as a result of legal actions taken in 2014 against Harvard College and the University of North Carolina separately. The two lawsuits aimed to invalidate Grutter v. Bollinger, which now governs how colleges and universities employ racial admissions criteria.

Harvard and UNC have maintained that the colleges make admission decisions in accordance with Grutter’s standards and that race is just one of the numerous criteria they take into account, along with socioeconomic status and extracurricular activities.
A group called Students for Fair Admissions, which receives funding from conservative legal activist Edward Blum filed both lawsuits in response to what he perceives to be racial considerations in school admissions.

Because Asian American applicants are less likely to be admitted than equally competent Black, Latino, or Indigenous applicants, the group claims that Harvard violated Title VI of the Civil Rights Act in the Harvard case. Title VI prohibits racial discrimination in organizations that receive government financing.

When President Lyndon B. Johnson signed an executive order prohibiting discrimination in the workplace based on race, religion, and later gender, by those organizations that obtained government contracts and subcontracts, affirmative action was born out of the civil rights movement of the 1960s.

Nine states—Florida, California, Michigan, Nebraska, Arizona, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Idaho—have passed laws outlawing the use of affirmative action based on race in public institutions. In 2022, Washington State lifted its restrictions on Affirmative Action Programmes.

About the author

Amelia Jhon

Add Comment

Click here to post a comment

Discover more from DailyTrends

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading