• After the Supreme Court ruled that affirmative action in educational admissions is unconstitutional, legal experts say universities may circumvent the ruling.
• Experts write that the opinion of Chief Justice John Roberts makes it possible to infer and judge racial characteristics through articles and debates, but in the opinion of Chief Justice Roberts, race can be inferred indirectly. It also states that efforts to use it would be unconstitutional.
• “[T]The court appears to have provided a draft of the college paper,” writes Professor Jonathan Turley of George Washington University.

After the Supreme Court ruled Thursday that affirmative action in higher education admissions is unconstitutional, legal experts say universities may be able to circumvent the ruling’s ban. Says.

6 to 3 majority of courts opinion In a fair admissions student v. Harvard lawsuit, John Roberts held that the use of race as an explicit factor in enrolling students violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Regarding the admissions practices of Harvard and the University of North Carolina, the Chief Justice wrote: Where race can be phased out, it “necessarily uses race in a negative way, entails racial stereotypes, and lacks a meaningful endpoint.” But some legal experts believe that universities can continue to use race by masking race considerations in other aspects of the application process.

“[T]The court appears to have provided a draft of the college essay. It states that students can still bring up personal struggles against racism (and universities will consider it). ” tweeted Jonathan Turley JB and Maurice Shapiro Public Interest Law Professors at George Washington University. “[Universities] Moving forward, we plan to score individual struggles regarding race as part of the application process. High school advisors are likely to reframe essay guidelines as Roberts reads from the bench,” he added.

Last Page of Judge Thomas’ Consent in Affirmative Action Litigation Is Incredibly Difficult pic.twitter.com/Zc4dVZoTcT

— Alec Sears (@alec_sears) June 29, 2023

Turley tweeted that Roberts said, “Nothing prevents universities from considering applicants’ arguments about how race has affected their lives. “So long as it is specifically tied to a person’s character and unique abilities, the university holds nothing back,” he said, citing a passage from the court’s decision. Applicants can contribute to the university. Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in her dissenting opinion:[t]His realization that universities can sometimes consider race in application essays is nothing more than an attempt to put lipstick on a pig. ”

For example, the benefits to students who overcome racism must be tied to their courage and determination. Alternatively, the benefits to students whose traditions and cultures have motivated them to assume leadership roles or to achieve specific goals should be tied to their unique ability to contribute to the university. In other words, students must be treated on the basis of their experience as individuals, not their race. — Chief Justice John Roberts Student For Fair Admissions, Inc. vs. Harvard University

In his remarks, Professor Roberts said, “Despite the contention of the opposition, universities may not simply be able to establish, through application papers or other means, what we today call illegal.” He replied by writing, adding:[a] Dissenting opinions are generally not the best source of legal advice on how to follow the majority opinion. ”

Some left-wing legal scholars also echoed Turley’s views. Neil Katial, a professor at the Georgetown University Law Center and former attorney general in the Obama administration, said: tweeted Quoting a passage from Roberts in his opinion, he said, “The court leaves the door open to self-identification.”

Other experts take a different view, finding it very difficult to overcome the ruling prohibitions in an indirect way. “[A]Attempts to reverse-engineer specific levels of racial diversity, such as strongly favoring first-generation college students who grew up speaking Spanish in single-mother households, or setting different income standards for certain groups of students That could be legally problematic,” said Gail Herriot. , member of the U.S. Civil Rights Commission, comment To The Wall Street Journal.

Something to keep in mind: 60% of Democrats oppose race as a factor in college admissions (https://t.co/POOknTFLys). Whatever you hear from the liberal media today, keep in mind that SCOTUS reflects the views of three-quarters of Americans in defeating affirmative action. pic.twitter.com/ifAnokWATe

— Bhatia Ungar Sargon (@bungarsargon) June 29, 2023

A senior legal fellow at the Heritage Foundation writes, “Woke university administrators are realizing that the racism and biased admissions they have implemented has no place in America anymore.” statement About court decisions.

The University of California system may be beneficial. After the 1996 state referendum, voters approved A ban on the use of race in public university entrance exams prompted the university’s 10 campuses to establish partnerships with minority high schools and community centers to encourage applicants to apply and admissions officers to form partnerships and Attention was paid to the details of the intersecting careers. Around WSJ.

At Harvard University, e-mail In response to this ruling, he noted that the court’s ruling allowed “applicants to discuss how their race has affected their lives,” and continued this language regarding race in admissions. showed an attitude of reliance on Meanwhile, Yale University said:[w]Yale University President Peter Sarovy said in an email to the community that the university will continue to promote diversity in many aspects and will use all legal means to achieve it.

Harvard will look to essays, says email pic.twitter.com/byJbri5nMz

— Eliana Johnson (@elianayjohnson) June 29, 2023

“[I]It will not end “all” race-based affirmative action, but it will “strictly limit” the way universities consider race in admissions decisions. ” tweeted Steve Vladek, law professor at the University of Texas at Austin, said: Focus on it Or “[t]The majority did not explicitly overthrow Grutter or formally ban “all” race-based affirmative action. ”

“It never ends and ends,” Vladek said.

All content produced by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent, non-partisan news distribution service, is available free of charge to legitimate news publishers capable of serving large audiences. All reissues must include our company logo, press byline, and DCNF affiliation. If you have any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact us at licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.