- Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College and Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. University of North Carolina
- Structure:
- Introduction to affirmative action (topic history) - Kaitlyn
- definitions, origins, how it is used currently, particularly in college admissions context
- Brief legal history of past cases - Jason
- if relevant, previous cases related to affirmative action or similar topics (making decisions based on race?)
- Background on case - Vanessa
- origins of this specific case, who are the parties involved
- Outcome of case - Rafael
- ruling, decision
- Implications - Jason
- how this impacts college admissions, specifically hopkins
- Different reactions to case outcome and rationale behind reactions
- Introduction to affirmative action (topic history) - Kaitlyn
- ~1-2 paragraphs a bullet point
- stick to impartial and facts
- Due July 11th
- needed before meeting on July 12th
- Structure:
[just wanted to copypaste President Daniels’ email “Johns Hopkins' unwavering commitment to diversity” for ease of access as it can come in handy for some topics]
Dear Johns Hopkins Community,
Today, the Supreme Court issued decisions in two long-awaited cases: Students for Fair Admissions v. President and Fellows of Harvard College and Students for Fair Admissions v. University of North Carolina. The court found in favor of the petitioners and has determined that the race conscious admissions policies at Harvard and UNC violate federal law. We continue to review the Supreme Court’s opinions in the cases, but it is clear that the court’s decision severely curtails the consideration of race as a factor for the purpose of seeking student body diversity. For many of us, today’s decision is a significant setback in our efforts to build a university community that represents the rich diversity of America. We know that a variety of different barriers have long prevented students from a host of different backgrounds from accessing higher education at institutions like ours. We also know that a diverse student body enriches the educational experience and better equips our students to assume the responsibilities of citizenship. Today's decision appears to leave intact the programs we have created to recruit students who are the first in their families to attend college or who are from families with limited income—now composing almost a third of our undergraduate first-year class—as well as those who come from rural and urban communities across our country and who hold diverse beliefs and perspectives. But there is no doubt that the success we have enjoyed in ensuring full participation of underrepresented students is jeopardized by this decision.
This is particularly distressing given the long history of racial discrimination in our country and the relatively brief period of time during which we have succeeded in recruiting significant numbers of outstanding underrepresented students to Johns Hopkins. As recently as 2010, Black students made up only 6% and Hispanic students only 8% of Hopkins' entering undergraduate class. Today, Black students make up 16% and Hispanic students nearly 24% of the class. And it goes without saying that these students are among those with the strongest academic credentials in the country. We remain deeply committed to the progress we have made and even more so to the extraordinary people who make up our undergraduate and graduate student bodies. These decisions do not diminish our resolve. In the coming days, we will closely examine the court’s decisions and assess its implications for our admissions programs. Over the last several months, we have been reviewing the approaches taken by universities in states where a referendum or statute has restricted the use of race as one of many factors in a holistic admissions process. Drawing on the lessons of their experience, we will, to the best of our ability, continue to reduce the barriers that stand between exceptional students and the promise of equal opportunity that forms the bedrock of our country and our university. Sincerely, Ron Research Case Backgrounds https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/20-1199_hgdj.pdf
- Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA) - nonprofit org whose purpose is to “defend human and civil rights secured by law, including right of individuals to equal protection under law”
- Argue that Harvard and UNC’s race-based admissions programs violate Title VI of Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Equal Protection Clause of 14th Amendment
- Title VI prohibits entities that receive federal funding from discriminating based on race, or affirmative action
- Violates 14th amendment by using race-based considerations
- SFFA first sued Harvard University in 2014, alleging that race-conscious admissions discriminated against Asian American applicants
- As well as “engaging in impermissible racial balancing, using race as a mechanical plus factor, and not adequately considering race-neutral alternatives”
- SFFA cases filed in 2014 and led by Edward Blum, long-time affirmative action critic
- “In both cases, lower courts concluded that both universities conducted permissible use of race to promote diversity”
- UNC case timeline
- Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, NC Justice Center and Relmen, Dane, & Colfax PLLC represent diverse group of students and alumni to defend race-consideration
- Nov 9, 2020 - trial at state level - Lawyers’ Committee and counsel present eight Black and Latinx students/alumni to testify about race-conscious admissions process
- Goes to supreme court - David Hinojosa, director of the Educational Opportunities Project at Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law defended UNC’s race-conscious admissions program
- Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, NC Justice Center and Relmen, Dane, & Colfax PLLC represent diverse group of students and alumni to defend race-consideration
- Harvard case timeline
- Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, Lawyers’ for Civil Rights, Asian Americans Advancing Justice, and pro bono counsel from Arnold & Porter defend a group of multi-racial and multi-ethnic Harvard students and prospective students. These students identify as Black, Latinx, Native American, and AAPI.
- Doesnt receive full intervention like in UNC but students can submit briefs, participate in oral arguments, etc
- Students participate in 3 week trial in October 2018 - presented opening and closing arguments as well as direct testimony from four witnesses