Its six conservative magistrates judged, against the opinion of the three progressives, unconstitutional the admission procedures on campuses taking into account the color of the skin or the ethnic origin of the candidates.
Many universities have mistakenly considered that the basis of a person’s identity is not their probation, the skills acquired or the lessons learned, but the color of their skin. Our constitutional history does not condone that, Magistrate John Roberts wrote on behalf of the majority.
“In other words, the student must be treated according to his individual experiences, but not according to racial criteria. »
— A quote from Magistrate John Roberts
Diametrically opposed visions
Several highly selective universities had introduced racial and ethnic criteria into their admissions process in the late 1960s to correct inequalities stemming from the segregationist past of the United States and to increase the share of black, Hispanic or indigenous students in their enrollments.
These policies, known as positive discrimination, have always been highly criticized in conservative circles who consider them opaque and see in them reverse racism.
Referred to on several occasions since 1978, the Supreme Court had prohibited quotas, but had always authorized universities to take into account, among other things, racial criteria.
Until now, she considered legitimate the search for greater diversity on campuses, even if it means violating the principle of equality between all American citizens.
On Thursday, progressive magistrates strongly criticized this volte-face.
The Supreme Court looks back on decades of jurisprudence and immense progress, wrote, on their behalf, Justice Sonia Sotomayor.
« [La Cour] cements an artificial rule of indifference to skin color as a constitutional principle in a deeply segregated society, where race has always mattered and will continue to matter. »
— A quote from Judge Sonia Sotomayor
Long-term fight
This judgment finds its source in a complaint filed in 2014 against the oldest private and public universities in the United States, Harvard and that of North Carolina.
At the head of an association called Students for Fair Admission, a neoconservative activist, Edward Blum, had accused them of discriminating against Asian students. The latter, who have academic results clearly above the average, would be more numerous on campus if their performance were the only selection criterion, he argued.
After having suffered several defeats in court, he turned to the Supreme Court which, ironically, has never been as diverse as it is today with two African-American judges and one Hispanic.
Neoconservative activist Edward Blum. (File photo)
Photo : Reuters / Brian Snyder
But the high court has been radically overhauled by Donald Trump and now has six out of nine conservative magistrates, including African-American judge Clarence Thomas, a defender of the positive discrimination programs from which he nevertheless benefited to study at the prestigious Yale University.
The government of Democratic President Joe Biden had pleaded in vain for the status quo.
The future of our country depends on its ability to have leaders with varied profiles, capable of leading an increasingly diverse society, had argued its representative.
In the same vein, large companies, including Apple, General Motors, Accenture or Starbucks, had pointed out that having a diverse workforce improved their performance and that they depended on schools across the country to train their future employees.
2023-06-29 19:11:16
#Supreme #Court #ends #affirmative #action
