This is the Harvard/UNC combo of affirmation action programs. You can read the opinion HERE but—probably due to the number of opinions—the full report is 237 pages long.
Lots of opinions—this is America, right? No surprise, of course, that on a case of this importance Roberts wrote the opinion, but it seems notable that, despite some differences of opinion, six justices signed on to Roberts’ opinion:
ROBERTS, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which THOMAS, ALITO, GORSUCH, KAVANAUGH, and BARRETT, JJ., joined.
THOMAS, J., filed a concurring opinion.
GORSUCH, J., filed a concurring opinion, in which THOMAS, J., joined.
KAVANAUGH, J., filed a concurring opinion.
SOTOMAYOR, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which KAGAN, J., joined, and in which JACKSON, J., joined as it applies to No. 21–707.
JACKSON, J., filed a dissenting opinion in No. 21–707, in which SOTOMAYOR and KAGAN, JJ., joined.
JACKSON, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of the case in No. 20–1199.
Here’s Turley’s early take—there will be lots more views offered later:
Jonathan Turley
@JonathanTurley
As expected, Roberts has secured a decision maintaining his view that the way to end racial discrimination is the end discrimination on the basis of race.
9:10 AM · Jun 29, 2023
However, the Court appears to be supplying the draft for college essays. It says that students can still raise (and colleges consider) their individual struggle with racism.
Schools will likely pivot as they did after the Bakke decision. They will now score individual struggles with race as part of the application process. High school academic advisers are likely reframing their essay guidelines as Roberts reads his opinion from the bench.
Here is the new high school guideline for college admissions advisers: "nothing in this opinion should be construed as prohibiting universities from considering an applicant's discussion of how race affected his or her life, be it through discrimination, inspiration, or otherwise. But, despite the dissent's assertion to the contrary, universities may not simply establish through application essays or other means the regime we hold unlawful today."
I expect that colleges and universities are already working on the circumvention of the decision. They can use essays to identify race, even encouraging students to share any struggles with discrimination.
There is also this, as a way of circumventing bans on race based admissions:
There is also a move to eliminate standardized tests, which will make future challenges more difficult.
Will Eliminating Standard Tests Really Reduce Racial Disparities In Education?
Below is my column in The Hill newspaper on the announcement that the University of California will now join the “test-blind” movement and end the use of the SAT and ACT in its admissio…
In fairness to Roberts—yes, I have to preface my comment with that boilerplate—this really is a difficult issue. My father was a professor. He once shared with me that his department’s decision to go with test scores as virtually the entire basis for admission to their graduate program was a big mistake. It lead to higher ratings for the department from the usual “guides”, but it also led to a very one-dimensional student body—lots of students who had spent their lives pursuing high GPAs and prepping for top test scores, but not so much time stretching their minds. The fact is that past a certain level of measurable intelligence—something like 115-120 on the IQ scale—there isn’t much if any correlation with creativity. My father was very much in favor of taking personal character into account—not race, but character traits that correlate with intelligence and creativity. You can do that in part from an application, but it does also require in depth personal interviews.
That’s just another way of saying that reality, and especially the reality of human nature, is never simple and that no “paint by number” system—whether in liberal arts or medical science or whatever—can do justice to that complexity. GPAs and Test Scores can never tell the whole story, but will always serve a useful purpose in admissions—and may well be the deciding factor in many cases. How many of us really want to be judged as persons simply on the basis of test scores or cumulative GPA? How many of us believe that such measures really give a fair picture of us as persons?
Such considerations would seem to offer some common sense ways to establish intelligent standards for admission that are fair but aren’t simply race based. But that assumes good faith on the part of academe. As usual, political reality cynically trumps intelligent policy standards by politicizing race for purposes other than justice. This decision tries to be reasonable, but in our politicized society—and nowhere is our society more politicized than in academe—race will continue to be used as a proxy for our political wars. The victims, as in most proxy wars, will almost certainly continue to be those who are told they will benefit by being given a race based advantage.
Bottom line? The SCOTUS is a poor instrument for solving deep seated political and social problems. It can help in narrowly defined circumstances, but that’s about it. The forces of division have the advantage because creating division is always easier than promoting unity because those seeking to create division always have the head start. No simple solutions, once the unity of a common culture has been lost. Our common culture was based in Christendom. How will we get that back?
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2023/06/justice_jacksons_emotional_dissent_relied_on_an_objectively_flawed_study.html
Nice comparison of Clarence Thomas' life experience and KBJ's:
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2023/06/dramatic_fault_lines_between_justices_clarence_thomas_and_ketanji_brown_jacksons_affirmative_action_ruling__and_their_lived_experiences_too.html