In cases to be reviewed by the Supreme Court this week, affirmative action admission rules employed by universities to ostensibly increase diversity are expected to be struck down.
Monday will see oral arguments over whether Harvard and the University of North Carolina discriminated against white and Asian applicants in their admissions processes.
It is anticipated that the Supreme Court, which is currently more conservative than in the past, would invalidate these rules, many of which were enacted decades ago.
The schools believe that affirmative action rules, which allow them to consider race when evaluating applications, aid in the creation of diverse learning environments.
On Monday, the Supreme Court will hear two cases challenging the legality and constitutionality of so-called affirmative action programs, involving North Carolina and Harvard.
Both cases were filed by Students for Fair Admissions, a nonprofit created in 2005 by 70-year-old former stockbroker Edward Blum.
Blum has coordinated eight cases that reached the Supreme Court since 1996.
“I’m a one-trick pony,” Blum told Reuters in an interview. I hope and care that racial categories and preferences are eliminated from public policy.
He continued, “A person’s race or ethnicity should not be used to benefit or hinder them in their attempts in life.”
Affirmative actions are a series of policies aimed to boost the representation of particular groups of individuals based on traits such as ethnicity, gender, and religion.
Since the 1960s, such programs have been discussed as a way to eliminate prejudice against underprivileged groups by enhancing their employment or educational chances.
Typically, affirmative action programs function by requiring institutions, such as universities and corporations, to admit quotas of persons from specified backgrounds into their organizations.
To create a diverse student body, the Supreme Court determined in 2003 that Michigan Law School could consider race in its admissions practices. It was decided in what were considered the most significant affirmative action lawsuits in the past quarter-century.
In contrast, affirmative action has become an increasingly controversial strategy for addressing racial inequities in institutions and society over the past several decades.
Proponents of the concept assert that such measures reverse the historical effects of racism, whilst detractors claim that it is a type of “reverse discrimination” that exclusively favours the most privileged members of a minority community.
In a 2007 ruling on the use of race in assigning children to public schools, Chief Justice John Roberts stated, “The way to end discrimination based on race is to cease discriminating based on race.”
In 2016, Blum lost a case challenging the consideration of race in student admissions when the Supreme Court decided 4-3 against a white woman he recruited to sue the University of Texas.
He referred to the 2016 verdict as a “severe disappointment.”
One of the latest cases accuses Harvard of breaching Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which prohibits discrimination based on race, color, or national origin in any federally funded program or activity.
The second lawsuit filed against UNC asserts that the university violated the 14th Amendment, which ensures equal treatment under the law.
Both cases are anticipated to be decided before the end of June.