Introduction
A few years ago, the case Students for Fair Admissions v. President and Fellows of Harvard College made the Supreme Court address important controversial legal questions regarding whether to consider race as a factor in university admissions. This controversy concerns Harvard University’s selection squad, which takes race continuously, while among others, it reads a “holistic review process” for having a complex student body. The policy has been opposed by students for fair admissions who have a disagreement with it because the policy discriminates against Asian-American applicants and hence violates the Fourth Amendment and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Two pivotal legal questions arise from this case: Overall, the Court may concentrate on these two main questions: whether the Harvard policy of utilizing race as one of the factors in admissions corresponds to the conditions described in Grutter v. Bollinger and Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin; and if there is a necessity to review the appellate precedent set in the Grutter case whereby any consideration of race, even in the smallest form, was recognized as an indication of constitutional On this account, I too believe that the majority’s argument that the school policy did not attain the strict scrutiny standard and so lawfully failed to fulfill the Title VI is correct. Reframing, though, I differ from the majority who have decided to overrule Grutter simultaneously. Instead, considering the interests of diversity, the constitutional protections to avoid discrimination need to be equally considered. This opinion will unfold in four parts: the essential provisions of Harvard’s admission policy, an in-depth investigation of whether this policy conforms to the precedents of the establishment of the Court of Supreme, and an ultimate public statement of whether to support or discard the Grutter.
Description of Harvard’s Admissions Policy
Hcourt documents and publicly available information affiliate Harvard University policy issues with admissions shared by its creator to create a diverse academic environment by considering various factors, including race (Francis, 2017). This approach is centered on the idea that a diverse student population is one of the factors that make education highly qualitative, and thus, a diverse atmosphere rich with different opinions and experiences helps students prepare for a multicultural society.
Integration of Race in the Holistic Review Process
In addition, the admissions officers from Harvard argue that their review process is based on their holistic approach: it is a highly detailed process that recognizes the significance of academic achievements, the inner qualities, and the potential contribution to the Harvard community. In this model, race would not be singled out as the standalone discriminating factor. Rather, it would be just one of the factors under consideration, a factor whose diversity contribution would add to the student body’s overall diversity mix (Francis,2017). Such race is subject to what is known as the one-factor-above-all-others dictum, wherein none of the applicants should be assessed on his/her only race, not the mine others’ one characteristic.
Specific Aspects Under Legal Scrutiny
Personal Rating
The “personal rating” is one of the key issues of Harvard’s admission policy that has faced legal troubles. This “personal rating” results from a subjective assessment of a person’s traits, such as character, courage, and leadership abilities (Mahoney, 2003). Consumers of the system, also known as Students for Fair Admissions, claim that there is a hidden element of opinion innate in the process, and, therefore, there is a way associated with a subtle racial bias. This program may be manifested as, to the detriment of Asian-American students, their lower scores on personal qualities may be reduced, although they have more academic and extracurricular ratings.
Allegations of Racial Balancing
One more issue might be accusations of maintaining racial balance without quotas applied that aim to make sure that the university does not have certain race students for, for example, 50% percent. Moreover, this case will trigger much attention, and similar school SAT disparity cases in history will remind decent people of the former judicial decisions that condemned the quota system (Mahoney,2003). The fear, meanwhile, is that although the University might be using race as one of the plus factors, as Vernon v. Bollinger allowed, and even in the same way, it may be using race as a decisive factor in a manner that aligns closely with illegal racial quotas.
Contrast with Policies Upheld in Previous Supreme Court Decisions
In accordance- which was based on the previous Grutter vs. Bollinger, in which the use of race as one of the admissions factors was upheld- Harvard’s policy is aimed at similar things. In the Grutter case, the justice ruled that educational diversity can be a compelling interest, too, and it remains valid as a tool for creating particular conditions for the admission of students, provided that the use of race is justified and individualized. Nevertheless, the way the Grutter case was handled—especially about national rating and the problems that racial balancing may create— is questionable, as it remains debatable whether it is adaptive and simple enough according to the clarified Grutter judgment and the latest decisions made in Fisher, a case against the different university. In Fisher’s case, the Court insisted that universities provide proof that they have examined whether any efficient racial-neutral alternatives are available and whether they would ensure the educational benefits of diversity.
This strategy of the Elite Ivy League, like Harvard, is intended to ensure diversity and cross-cultural awareness while beating the borders of ethics, law, and educational philosophy. The policy’s conformity to Supreme Court precedents hinges on its execution being free from racial bias and aligned with the constitutional mandate that requires race to be used judiciously and as part of a genuinely holistic review of an applicant’s file (Francis,2017). To the extent that this policy reveals, although the challenges remain in the interpretation and the implementation of the law compliance, compliance with this particular policy is complex.
Analysis of Harvard’s Policy Against Established Precedents
The most important location the legitimacy of Harvard University’s admissions policy (which is concerned with the previous rulings of the Supreme Court, including Grutter v. Bollinger and Fisher v. the University of Texas at Austin) is understood. The previous decisions have left a complex framework for determining racial factors in college admission, analogous to education initiatives. Moreover, in Grutter, the Court held that Law School at the University of Michigan could take race into account when choosing among diversity, promoting a holistic admission process. This decision stressed that such diversity will provide a compelling educational interest since it can make students curious about and open to different cultures, thus leading them to work smoothly in a multicultural society (Sapp,2016). It is then that Harvard’s admission policy is, on the same lines, built on the use of race in the minority category in the holistic review process. Nevertheless, the process faced a lower level of criticism in the Grutter decision due to the apparent transparency and narrow focus of the measures used. This is the opposite of what is happening now, where Harvard’s methodology has been scrutinized because of the perceived lack of transparency and the disproportionate role of race, evident in the “personal rating” aspect.
Through the Grutter case, Fisher also sharpened the inspection implemented in Grutter, stating that any race-conscious admissions policy must pass severe scrutiny by demonstrating the particularisms and yielding educational benefits from admitting diverse students. In addition, the standard should mandate that such a procedure be public and easily accessible, and it should be sought only as a last resort after carefully considering avoidance alternatives (Supp, 2016). The critics, on the other hand, counsel that in the absence of a justification as to why it is essential for this particular approach to race since other shades could lead to similar diversity outcomes.
To worry Justice Roberts in the majority is that these particular issues need to be considered because Harvard may not be fully meeting the very strict standards that Fisher set forth. The stand warned that Ivy League’s policy was likely making the racial balancing move by taking a quota-like step. However, the Court’s previous decisions forbade such action using a quota. In his concurrence, Justice Thomas touches upon this aspect, saying that the measures of Harvard do not fall among the bounds that Grutter guaranteed by basically re-establishing a preference system that Grutter tried to avoid (Supp,2016). On the contrary, Justice Sotomayor’s dissent postulates that the principles of Grutter may have to be interpreted and applied conditionally as dynamism has invited new truths into the diversity discourse. She interprets the case of Grutter, which is favorable to Harvard. According to her viewpoint, the adoption of the policy by the admissions office of Harvard has a similar aim, namely the creation of a diverse educational environment that should stimulate intercultural relations.
Grutter’s decision was made when this led to Harvard’s intentions to broaden educational diversity. This, however, does not change the fact that how this diversity is achieved must be carefully challenged. Transparency issues and the sense of impediment quota system create a discrepancy with the requirements of the straightforward criteria. Therefore, the policy must present the case where race-based approaches can be shown to have preferred alternatives to race-neutral ones if race-neutral options prove sufficient, which currently appears insufficiently supported by evidence. Accordingly, appealed to the Grounds like Grutter, Harvard’s practices that met the strict scrutiny standard found in Fisher were widely discordant, as shown (Chrfisherfisher,2016). Regardless, these gaps are still there. Thus, the policy will certainly accomplish the desired goal of diversity, but he/she can go beyond the means set and extended by the Court’s precedent.
Consideration of Overruling Grutter
To reanalyze the case of Grutter v. Bollinger, deciding whether to overrule or not, they divide with legal and social issues. SustainingGrueter maintains the current system, allowing universities to further use race as one of the factors in admission in order to secure a diverse educational environment—a goal described in Gruter as being in the “[furthering] of cross-cultural understanding” and “[recognition] of the importance of world-wide networking.” Instead, Grutter being overturned is equivalent to outright forbidding racial affirmative action, envisioned as the strictest interpretation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act. It may be the reason for the lesser racially diverse student body, but other concerns that can be prevented by discrimination in the admissions process. Instead of moving further beyond Grutter to consider race more blatantly, setting stricter standards of race recognition could handle perpetual inequalities in higher education access while at the same time mitigating more intense legal problems and public controversy over affirmative action programs. There is a diversity of the thought process of the majority and dissenting opinions on these issues, and some may consider any racial consideration to be fundamentally unequal. In contrast, dissenters provide the example necessary to redress historical injustices and as a means of true equality conflict (Brown, 2014). From the educational and social perspective, diversity has already been proven to be, as backed by most of the studies, strongly tied to participation in critical thinking, civic engagement, and student success, which constitutes an excellent basis for the argument that color-blind admissions policies could lead to their dismantling.
The contribution diversity makes to society’s social and educational values is indeed major. This helps students to learn in a more enriching environment with a broader perspective and deeper understanding and is more attentive to the needs of their peers. The choice of characters, locations, and circumstances instills creative impulses and teaches universal principles for living. I agree only with my judicial philosophy on the Equal Treatment Clause, which is its role in protecting against discrimination, except narrowly tailored Affirmative Action measures to handle the issues concerning racial minorities within the society (Brown,2014). Philosophically speaking, these policies, if appropriately tackled, downplay the idea that we should treat everyone equally. They push us to work towards substantive equality and equalize the playing field where all can participate.
Conclusion
In summary, Harvard University puts into practice its policy that fosters understanding of the Grutter v. Bollinger approach but does not comply with the strict scrutiny standard to justify its discriminating features. This bad policy has opaqueness, and it is drawn very close to the tolerable limits for racial mixing. Thus, its application is not allowed. On the other hand, the Supreme Court’s ruling to overturn Grutter and completely prohibit using race as the primary factor in admission is unacceptable because this is unproductive and narrows the path to diversity in higher education. Grutter’s upholding the idea of setting up strict compliance affords a balanced approach, which shows the educational value of diversity as well as the EPC deserves. This ambiguous situation emphasizes the positive evolution of affirmative action during constitutional constraints. However, these changes should still be made fairly and transparently in order to ensure fairness and inclusion in college admissions.
References
Francis, V. L. (2017). Accepting uncertainty: Fisher V. University of Texas and race-conscious college admissions. JC & UL, 43, 124.
Mahoney, Maureen E., Evan Caminker, Marvin Krislov, Jonathan Alger, Philip J. Kessler, Leonard M. Niehoff, J. Scott Ballenger, et al. “Brief for Respondents, Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 US 306 (2003)(No. 02-241).” (2003).
Supp, F. (2016). Admissions, Inc. v. President & Fellows of Harvard College, 980 F. 3 d. UCLA L. REV, pp. 89, 91–92.
Brown, P. (2014). The Civil Rights Act of 1964. Wash. UL Rev., pp. 92, 527.
write