What does US Supreme Court ruling against UNC’s admissions policy mean? What to know

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Thursday that UNC-Chapel Hill’s and Harvard University’s considerations of race in undergraduate admissions are unconstitutional, saying such practices violate guarantees of equal protection under the law.

Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the 6-3 majority opinion in a landmark ruling on affirmative action — the policy that allowed colleges to consider race in admissions.

The ruling effectively brings an end to that policy for colleges, though Roberts noted that universities may consider “an applicant’s discussion of how race affected his or her life, be it through discrimination, inspiration, or otherwise.”

In her dissenting opinion, Justice Sonia Sotomayor said the court’s decision “rolls back decades of precedent and momentous progress.”

Have questions about the case and what it means? We’ve compiled answers to common questions about the case and its potential impacts below.

What did the Supreme Court rule in UNC admissions case?

The Supreme Court ruled that UNC’s consideration of race in admissions was unconstitutional because it violates the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.

UNC had been in a legal battle to defend its policies for nearly a decade, after anti-affirmative action group Students for Fair Admissions filed a lawsuit against the university in 2014, alleging that the university’s consideration of race was detrimental to white and Asian American students, while disproportionately benefiting “underrepresented minority applicants with inferior academic credentials.”

UNC argued throughout the process that its policies adhered to previous Supreme Court precedent on race-conscious affirmative action in college admissions.

Dating back at least two decades, the court had maintained that such practices were permissible, provided race was used in a narrow, highly individualized way, and that universities had a compelling reason to do so — namely, to achieve a diverse student body and the educational benefits that stem from it.

But the Supreme Court ruled that UNC’s policies “lack sufficiently focused and measurable objectives warranting the use of race, unavoidably employ race in a negative manner, involve racial stereotyping, and lack meaningful end points,” and thus “cannot be reconciled with the guarantees of the Equal Protection Clause.”

What is the Equal Protection Clause?

It’s the part of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution that says a state may not “deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

Which justices ruled?

The six conservative-leaning justices opposed UNC’s admissions policies. Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett joined Roberts’ majority opinion.

Thomas, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh filed additional concurring opinions, with Thomas also joining Gorsuch’s opinion.

The three liberal-leaning justices would have upheld UNC’s policies. Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson filed dissenting opinions, both of which Justice Elena Kagan joined.

When does the Supreme Court on admissions ruling take effect?

The ruling is effective immediately, and colleges and universities around the country will likely make changes to their admissions policies and applications over the summer to comply with the law in time for the upcoming admissions cycle.

Such a timeline “implicates lots of change, probably in a very short period of time,” Art Coleman, managing partner and co-founder of consulting firm EducationCounsel, previously told The News & Observer.

UNC Chancellor Kevin Guskiewicz said in a campus email that university leaders “will need time to thoroughly review the details of this outcome and its potential impact before determining specifically how we will comply with this decision.” Guskiewicz added that the university will communicate more about its plans “in the coming weeks.”

Can race be considered in admissions after the Supreme Court ruling?

The Supreme Court’s ruling effectively ends the allowable consideration of race in admissions.

Under previous Supreme Court rulings on the issue, the court had held that race could be considered as one of many factors in a student’s application. UNC, for example, said throughout the legal process that race was one of dozens of factors considered in its “holistic approach to undergraduate admissions.”

The court’s ruling likely means race can no longer be considered as one of those factors, possibly ending the practice of colleges asking or allowing students to indicate their race on an application through checking a box or other means.

“I think that given what the court has said, I’d be surprised if colleges and universities did not revisit those kinds of mechanical processes, which reflect awareness of race,” Ted Shaw, a professor at the UNC School of Law who specializes in civil rights and affirmative action, told The N&O on Thursday.

In a statement Thursday, Students for Fair Admissions called for “the removal of all racial and ethnic classification boxes from undergraduate and postgraduate application forms.”

A concurring opinion from Justice Clarence Thomas directly addressed the notion of students checking a box to indicate race, implying such practices would not be allowed under the court’s ruling.

“If an applicant has less financial means (because of generational inheritance or otherwise), then surely a university may take that into account. If an applicant has medical struggles or a family member with medical concerns, a university may consider that too,” Thomas wrote. “What it cannot do is use the applicant’s skin color as a heuristic, assuming that because the applicant checks the box for ‘black’ he therefore conforms to the university’s monolithic and reductionist view of an abstract, average black person.”

But the court appeared to suggest that students may still discuss race in their applications in some way, and that colleges could consider students’ personal experiences that may be closely tied to race.

“A benefit to a student who overcame racial discrimination, for example, must be tied to that student’s courage and determination. Or a benefit to a student whose heritage or culture motivated him or her to assume a leadership role or attain a particular goal must be tied to that student’s unique ability to contribute to the university,” Roberts wrote. “In other words, the student must be treated based on his or her experiences as an individual — not on the basis of race.”

What alternatives to race can colleges consider now?

With the court’s ruling, colleges will likely pursue alternative factors to race — often called “race-neutral alternatives” — that could yield at least somewhat similar levels of diversity on their campuses.

Socioeconomic status and a student’s geography, or where they live, are perhaps the two most common race-neutral alternatives cited by opponents of race-conscious admissions.

A federal appeals court recently upheld a race-neutral, geography- and class-based admissions policy at an elite high school in Virginia, which appeared to increase the proportion of Black and Hispanic students admitted to the school.

Aside from specific race-neutral factors, colleges could also identify more comprehensive strategies and approaches to achieve diversity, by establishing, revamping or revitalizing efforts that address racial inequity in admissions from a broader perspective.

Coleman told The N&O prior to the rulings that he hoped colleges wouldn’t attempt to find a solution by “just looking at the admissions calculus and reconfiguring what those factors are.”

“I think it is actually a moment to step back and think through a more comprehensive lens, around barriers to racial equity that may be systemically embedded in part of our institutional practice,” he said.

Universities could, for instance, increase pre-application outreach to underrepresented minority groups, reconsider the use or weight of standardized testing in admissions decisions or offer increased financial aid.

One elite university in the Triangle recently made a major announcement on the increased financial aid front, though the university has not explicitly connected the decision to a then-potential Supreme Court ruling. About two weeks prior to the ruling, Duke University announced that it would begin offering free tuition this fall to students of families from North Carolina and South Carolina who make $150,000 or less.

How will the Supreme Court ruling affect campus diversity?

Even as colleges are likely to pursue race-neutral alternatives, prior evidence suggests that they will face uphill battles to achieve racially diverse student bodies.

“The colleges are going to go on,” Shaw, the UNC law professor, told The N&O Thursday. “But I think that there’s good reason to expect that they will not be as diverse as they have been.”

Prior to Thursday’s ruling against UNC and Harvard’s policies, nine states had previously banned race-conscious affirmative action, including California and Michigan, which are home to universities that had been involved in prior Supreme Court-level litigation over the issue.

The University of California system and the University of Michigan each submitted briefs to the Supreme Court in support of UNC, saying the universities had experienced decreases in racial diversity after race-conscious affirmative action was banned in their respective states, despite race-neutral alternatives they implemented.

Since race-conscious affirmative action was banned in California in 1996, the UC system’s brief said, the system has implemented neutral programs that “run the gamut from outreach programs directed at low-income students and students from families with little college experience, to programs designed to increase UC’s geographic reach, to holistic admissions policies.”

The programs “have enabled UC to make significant gains in its system-wide diversity,” the brief said, but “despite its extensive efforts, UC struggles to enroll a student body that is sufficiently racially diverse to attain the educational benefits of diversity.”

Will the ruling on admissions extend to workplaces?

Though often thought of in the context of college admissions, affirmative action also extends to some workplaces.

Thursday’s ruling by the Supreme Court applies most explicitly to university admissions policies, but Shaw said it could set the stage for future cases on affirmative action in other areas, including workplaces.

“These battles will continue,” Shaw said.

Read the Supreme Court decision in UNC and Harvard’s race-conscious admissions case