Supreme Court’s conservative majority questions race-conscious admissions

The Supreme Court has concluded nearly five hours of argument about the legality of using race as a factor in college admissions, with the justices appearing deeply divided along ideological lines.

In his final comments, attorney Cameron Norris, representing Students for Fair Admissions, emphasized what he called the harms of racial classifications.

“They stigmatize their intended beneficiaries. They increase racial consciousness, which delays the day in which we can move to true racial neutrality. And they cause resentment by treating people differently based on something they can’t change,” he said.

College students tracking the oral arguments Monday may have chuckled at a final line tossed into the record by the Students for Fair Admissions. “Students change majors like they change socks,” attorney Cameron Norris said. Perhaps, although undergraduate laundry habits can vary significantly. … And that’s a wrap from the hearing.

The university president whose name was on the landmark 2003 Supreme Court case that upheld the use of race in admissions said he fears what will happen if the precedent in Grutter v. Bollinger is overturned.

Lee C. Bollinger was president of the University of Michigan when its affirmative-action programs were challenged in court. For the past 20 years he has led Columbia University, which, like most highly ranked private universities, practices race-conscious admissions.

If Columbia is not allowed to consider race, Bollinger said in a conference call last week with reporters, the presence of Black, Hispanic and Native American students on the Ivy League campus could be diminished. “I would expect it to have a significant impact,” Bollinger said.

Rain did not did not deter hundreds of demonstrators Monday as they stood outside the Supreme Court while the justices heard hours of arguments in two separate affirmative action cases.

“People didn’t budge,” said Angie Shin, a senior at Harvard who spoke at the rally Monday. “We stayed right there.”

Even as the arguments were underway, a few dozen people — including many students — stood in line, hoping for a chance to get inside the court and see the arguments in person.

Two French students in the line said they traveled from Paris to visit family in D.C.

Reality check: For those who look to SAT or ACT admission scores as objective measures of “merit,” remember that a rising number of universities do not require those admission tests. (Among them, for now, is Harvard and the rest of the Ivy League.) The test-optional movement has huge momentum. Also, UC and some other major schools are now test-blind.

Solicitor General Elizabeth B. Prelogar is asking the justices not to overturn past decisions in 2003 and 2016 that allowed universities to consider race as one factor in admissions decisions. But the newly configured court has been willing to overturn precedent, as it did in June when it eliminated the nationwide right to abortion and overturned Roe v. Wade.

Over and over, justices are asking about the elusive “end point.” Underneath the question is when will race-conscious admissions no longer be necessary, in the perspective of Harvard and UNC. Harvard attorney Seth Waxman resisted being pinned down on a date. “We are proud of the progress we’ve made,” he said. But he added: “We still have work to do.”

Justices repeatedly pressed attorneys on about Harvard’s move to a “holistic” application process in the 1920s as a means to exclude some Jewish students, asking why an approach used to implement quotas should be allowed as a way to boost campus diversity.

Seth P. Waxman, representing Harvard College, pushed back. He said Harvard has, even before the Civil War, worked to diversify its student body, and has acknowledged, with shame, the quota decision in the 1920s.

Waxman also reminded the justices that courts have rejected the notion that “the racist antisemitic policy of a single Harvard president” bears at all on Harvard’s current admissions process.

As the Supreme Court heard cases Monday against the University of North Carolina and Harvard, Harvard was fact-checking oral arguments in real time on its Twitter feed.

Some of those facts included figures on its recent admissions cycle and notes on the various organizations and institutions that support race-conscious admissions.

“Fact check: Our admissions process values academic excellence, but never reduces applicants to any one factor,” read one tweet from Harvard’s official account.

Meanwhile, the official account for the University of North Carolina did not fact-check oral arguments in real time but shared a message from the school’s chancellor that argued removing race from consideration in admissions decisions would jeopardize UNC’s effort to build better citizens.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. has questioned race-conscious government policies since his time as a young lawyer in the Reagan administration, and he expressed deep concerns Monday about the use of race in college admissions at Harvard, his alma mater.

Harvard’s lawyer Seth Waxman conceded that being African American or Hispanic — or in some cases Asian American — can tip the scales in favor of admission for highly qualified applicants.

“So we're talking about race as a determining factor in admission to Harvard,” Roberts asked.

Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. pushed hard on how Harvard University treats Asian American applicants and why they would receive lower ratings for their personal qualities than those from other racial groups.

“Why are they given lower scores?” Alito asked Harvard attorney Seth Waxman.

Waxman replied that the federal trial court and an appellate court found no evidence that Harvard had illegally discriminated against Asian Americans. The personal rating, he said, is one small piece of the process and tends to “fade” into the background as its admissions team meets to review a file.