Will the Conservative-Controlled US Supreme Court Rule Affirmative Action for Black Students Unconstitutional?

[Image source=AP Yonhap News]

[Asia Economy New York=Special Correspondent Joselgina] "College admissions is a zero-sum game where benefits to a few result in disadvantages to others." "As Americans, we must truly reflect our diversity."

On the 31st (local time), the U.S. Supreme Court began hearings on the constitutionality of 'affirmative action,' a college admissions policy that favors minorities such as Black students. With conservative-leaning justices expressing strong opposition, many analysts believe the conservative-majority court is increasingly likely to rule the policy unconstitutional.

On this day, the Supreme Court consecutively heard constitutional challenges filed by Students for Fair Admissions (SFA) against the University of North Carolina and Harvard University, claiming that white and Asian American applicants were discriminated against under affirmative action. SFA argues that consideration for certain races such as Black students constitutes discrimination against others.

SFA initially filed the lawsuit in 2014 but lost in the lower courts. At that time, the courts ruled following existing Supreme Court precedents that universities cannot set quotas by race but may consider race as one of multiple factors. The Supreme Court upheld this precedent as recently as 2016.

However, with six of the nine justices appointed during the Trump administration now holding conservative views, there is speculation that a different ruling may be issued this time. During the approximately five-hour hearing, conservative justices expressed negative opinions about the policy.

They voiced skepticism about the concept of 'educational diversity,' which allows race to be considered in admissions decisions. Justice Clarence Thomas, who dissented in 2016, remarked, "I have heard the word diversity quite a bit, but I do not know what it means." Justice Samuel Alito also argued that college admissions favoring one group inevitably disadvantages another, describing it as a kind of "zero-sum game."

Chief Justice John Roberts, who has often played a moderating role, questioned whether diversity could be achieved in a 'race-neutral' manner, leading to speculation that alternatives to abolishing the policy are being considered.

On the other hand, the three liberal justices strongly defended affirmative action. Ketanji Brown Jackson, the first Black female justice, emphasized that universities consider not only race but also 40 other factors in admissions, contrary to SFA's claims. Justice Elena Kagan stressed, "Part of what it means to be an American, and to embrace American pluralism, is that institutions like universities truly reflect all our diversity as Americans."

SFA alleges that Harvard University, a private institution, violated the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination based on race, skin color, or national origin, by discriminating against Asian American applicants. They also claim that the University of North Carolina violated the 14th Amendment, which guarantees equal protection under the law regardless of race. Patrick Strawbridge, representing SFA, emphasized, "When the government decides who sits on juries, who marries whom, or which schools children attend, skin color cannot be one of the factors."

The New York Times reported, "The race-conscious admissions policies at Harvard and the University of North Carolina appear to be at risk in the Supreme Court," adding, "Most justices seem prepared to reconsider decades of precedent and issue a ruling that could declare the policies unconstitutional." The newspaper noted that if ruled unconstitutional, the proportion of Black and Latino students at these universities could decrease while the number of white and Asian students might increase. The Washington Post also reported, "The likelihood of ending affirmative action has increased," warning that relying solely on grades and test scores could lead to a dramatic decline in Black and Latino student enrollment.

Typically, Supreme Court rulings take about three months, but local media report that a decision on this case is expected around June next year.

Public opinion in the U.S. also leans more toward abolishing the policy. According to a poll by the Washington Post and George Mason University's Schar School of Public Policy, 63% of respondents supported banning affirmative action. Nine states?California, Arizona, Florida, Idaho, Michigan, Nebraska, New Hampshire, Oklahoma, and Washington?have already banned race-conscious admissions in public universities.

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.