What the Supreme Court decided
In Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard and a companion case involving the University of North Carolina, the Supreme Court ruled in June 2023 that race-conscious admissions policies violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and, for private schools receiving federal funds, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act. The vote was 6-3 in the Harvard case and 6-2 in the UNC case, with Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson recused from the Harvard matter.
The legal framework before 2023
For roughly two decades, colleges operated under Grutter v. Bollinger (2003), in which the Supreme Court held that universities could consider race as one factor among many to achieve the educational benefits of a diverse student body. Grutter built on Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978), which had barred racial quotas but allowed race to be weighed in a holistic review.
What schools can still do
Chief Justice John Roberts' majority opinion stated that universities may still consider "an applicant's discussion of how race affected his or her life," such as through application essays, but cautioned that schools cannot use essays as an indirect way to reinstate the practice the Court struck down. Admissions offices retain discretion over factors such as geography, family background, first-generation status, and socioeconomic circumstances.
The case for race-conscious admissions
Supporters argue that considering race helps address the lingering effects of slavery, segregation, and ongoing disparities in K-12 education, housing, and wealth. They contend that diverse classrooms produce educational benefits for all students, expose future leaders to a range of perspectives, and help build pipelines into professions where minority groups remain underrepresented. Many universities, civil rights organizations, and major employers filed briefs supporting Harvard and UNC.
The case against race-conscious admissions
Opponents argue that classifying applicants by race is itself a form of discrimination prohibited by the Constitution and civil rights laws. The plaintiffs in the Harvard case argued that the school's policies disadvantaged Asian American applicants, who they said received lower personal ratings on average. Critics also contend that race is a poor proxy for disadvantage and that universities should focus on socioeconomic factors instead.
State-level bans that came first
Even before the 2023 ruling, nine states had prohibited race-conscious admissions at public universities, often through ballot initiatives. California voters approved Proposition 209 in 1996, and Michigan voters passed a similar measure in 2006. Studies of those states have produced mixed findings on enrollment changes and have been cited by both supporters and opponents of the practice.
What comes next
Universities are revising application essays, recruitment strategies, and outreach programs to comply with the ruling while pursuing diversity goals through other means. Litigation continues over related questions, including legacy admissions, financial aid programs, and admissions practices at military service academies, which were not directly addressed by the 2023 decision.