A watershed decision by the U.S. Supreme Court in the cases Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College and Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. University of North Carolina has dramatically redefined the legal landscape for affirmative action in higher education. The verdict, reached on June 29, 2023, opined that the involved universities’ reliance on race in their admissions processes, no matter how earnestly or virtuously executed, transgressed the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.
Unraveling the Court’s Judgment
The Court’s decision was underpinned by several key arguments. Firstly, it concluded that the universities’ reasons to seek diversity benefits, including nurturing future leaders, encouraging idea exchange, and fostering racial understanding, weren’t adequately defined for comprehensive judicial assessment under strict scrutiny.
In contradiction to prior rulings allowing race to serve as a favorable factor, the Court pointed out that admissions processes naturally operate on a win-lose basis. Thus, any advantage given to one group inadvertently disadvantages another.
Moreover, it was argued that race-based admissions inadvertently resort to stereotyping by prioritizing race alone. Lastly, the Court found the admission programs lacked a tangible conclusion, creating an unending cycle of race-based preferences.
Yet, the Court underscored that universities could still consider how race has impacted an applicant’s life, as long as it is directly related to their character or unique capabilities that could benefit the university.
Repercussions Beyond Academia
While the ruling ostensibly pertains only to higher education admissions, the denouncement of any race-based preference could inspire challenges against the pursuit of racial diversity benefits, particularly in situations involving binary outcomes.
Edward Blum, the founder and president of Students for Fair Admissions, celebrated the ruling, calling it the start of restoring a colorblind legal system in our diverse nation. Hence, although not directly applicable, the ruling might incite litigation in other contexts and have broader implications for the private sector.
Implications for Workplace Diversity & Inclusion Initiatives
The ruling has sparked concern among employers who actively promote diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) through hiring, promotions, and mentorship programs. However, the Court’s decision does not directly address Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which safeguards job applicants and employees from employment discrimination.
The judgment did not overturn long-standing precedent supporting workplace affirmative action plans under Title VII. Following the decision, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) Chair Charlotte Burrows reassured that employers could lawfully implement DEI programs that ensure equal opportunities in the workplace.
However, the decision might incite legal challenges to policies aiming for specific demographic representation in leadership roles or be perceived as resorting to unconstitutional stereotyping. On a positive note, the Court didn’t oppose efforts to diversify the pool of applicants, suggesting recruitment programs targeting a broader racial mix remain unaffected.
Moving Forward: Adapting DEI Efforts
Given the verdict, companies and universities might need to innovate their approaches. Some may devise “adversity scales” considering factors like socioeconomic status, geographical location, and personal circumstances in their programs. The University of California Davis School of Medicine, for example, has been using such a scale in admissions since 2012.
Furthermore, organizations should frequently reevaluate their DEI statements and goals. While the Court commended the aims of diversity and equity, it challenged vague or generalized goals, especially if they justify selecting one candidate over another. Consequently, employers and institutions need to ensure their programs’ goals are clear and measurable to withstand potential scrutiny.
Overall, while the decision has reshaped affirmative action in higher education, it has opened a door to reassessing and refining how we approach and measure diversity and equity in all sectors of society.
Be Audit-Secure™!
Lisa Smith, SPHR, SCP
Sign-up HERE and Save $170!
Here is what all you will get:
- Boss Calls™ – Access to EVERY Boss Call™ – Past & Future.
- HelpDesk for HR VAULT – Access to all 8 of our proprietary tools and applications to make your workday simple.
- Forms, Docs, Policies and Procedures Library – 700+ samples you can download and edit to fit your needs.
- U.S. ePoster Club – Download state, city, and local posters. Both required & recommended, for all 50 states & D.C.
- Same-day email support – Write to our team of SPHR and SCP professionals with all your HR questions.
