In a pair of related decisions, the US Supreme Court has held that the admissions programs at Harvard College and the University of North Carolina -- similar to those used as all public colleges and many private colleges in Oregon -- violate the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.

The claims made by Students for Fair Admission in this case were based on Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which said, “No person in the United States shall, on the ground of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.” This was cited by Justice Neil Gorsuch in his concurring opinion where he also notes that "the trial records reveal that both schools routinely discriminate on the basis of race when choosing new students -- exactly what the law forbids."

In a single opinion, Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard College and University of North Carolina, the Chief Justice Roberts, writing for the majority said, "Admission to each school can depend on a student’s grades, recommendation letters, or extracurricular involvement. It can also depend on their race. The question presented is whether the admissions systems used by Harvard College and UNC are lawful under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment."

In his majority opinion, Chief Justice Roberts concludes, "the student must be treated based on his or her experiences as an individual—not on the basis of race. Many universities have for too long done just the opposite. And in doing so, they have concluded, wrongly, that the touchstone of an individual’s identity is not challenges bested, skills built, or lessons learned but the color of their skin. Our constitutional history does not tolerate that choice.

Segregated Admissions has been under consideration by the US Supreme Court since 1954 when it first considered that issue in Regents of University of California v. Bakke, which involved a set-aside admissions program used by the University of California, Davis, medical school. Each year, the school held 16 of its 100 seats open for members of certain minority groups, who were reviewed on a special admissions track separate from those in the main admissions pool.

A D V E R T I S E M E N T

A D V E R T I S E M E N T

In a statement sent out by University of Oregon Interim President Jamie Moffitt and Interim Provost and Executive Vice President Janet Woodruff-Borden, the decision was lamented.

"We are disappointed in the decision made today by the United States Supreme Court related to race-conscious decisions in admission. The University of Oregon shares the concerns of our university peers across the nation that this ruling will impact the ability of underrepresented students to access the benefits of higher education.

"However, the decision will not change our unwavering commitment to admitting students based on a comprehensive review of their capacity for excellence, a strategy that has vigorously supported our values of diversity, equity, inclusion, and belonging. The UO will continue to seek to attract and retain underrepresented and underserved students while providing them with equitable and inclusive access to higher education. This is critical to our mission of inclusive excellence.

"Our current university and academic program admissions processes focus on evaluating the promise of each applicant based on a comprehensive review of their quality of character, achievements within the context of their educational experience, and their unique ability to contribute to the university. That aspect of our admissions process has produced a diverse class of scholars each year, and we do not intend to change our successful strategy of evaluating each applicant based on their individual potential.

A D V E R T I S E M E N T

A D V E R T I S E M E N T

"We are carefully reviewing the decision and will make any necessary changes to our processes to comply with the ruling while ensuring we continue to achieve our mission-driven goals of providing access, opportunity, equity, and inclusion for students."

Former State Representative Mike Nearman (R-Independence) was a member of the House Committee on Higher Education and celebrated the decision. "Where limited opportunities exist, any acceptance of a student for any reason means that some nameless, faceless student has been rejected out the back door. It is unjust to base admissions on something as shallow as skin color."


--Staff Reports

Post Date: 2023-06-29 12:13:54

Last Update: 2023-06-29 13:35:49