This article is from the source 'bbc' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-65886212
The article has changed 14 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 1 | Version 2 |
|---|---|
| Affirmative action: US Supreme Court overturns race-based college admissions | Affirmative action: US Supreme Court overturns race-based college admissions |
| (32 minutes later) | |
| Protesters outside the Supreme Court when the case was heard last October | Protesters outside the Supreme Court when the case was heard last October |
| The US Supreme Court has ruled that race can no longer be considered a factor in university admissions. | |
| The landmark ruling upends decades-old US policies on so-called affirmative action, also known as positive discrimination. | The landmark ruling upends decades-old US policies on so-called affirmative action, also known as positive discrimination. |
| It is one of the most contentious issues in US education. | It is one of the most contentious issues in US education. |
| Affirmative action first made its way into policy in the 1960s, and has been defended as a measure to increase diversity. | Affirmative action first made its way into policy in the 1960s, and has been defended as a measure to increase diversity. |
| The White House said it was reviewing Thursday's seismic decision. | |
| The cases heard by the justices last October concerned admissions at Harvard and the University of North Carolina (UNC). | |
| The justices have ruled in favour of an organisation called Students for Fair Admissions, founded by a conservative activist, Edward Blum. | |
| The group argued that Harvard's race-conscious admissions policy violated Title VI the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which bars discrimination based on race, colour or national origin. | |
| The decision by the court's conservative majority fell largely along ideological lines with a 6-3 ruling against UNC and a 6-2 ruling against Harvard. | |
| Chief Justice John Roberts wrote: "Many universities have for too long wrongly concluded that the touchstone of an individual's identity is not challenges bested, skills built, or lessons learned, but the color of their skin." | |
| He wrote: "Such [race-based] admission programs must comply with strict scrutiny, may never use race as a stereotype or negative, and must - at some point, end." | |
| Justice Roberts's majority opinion said that while the UNC and Harvard admissions programmes were "well intentioned", they "fail each of these criteria". | |
| "Harvard's admissions process rests on the pernicious stereotype that 'a black student can usually bring something that a white person cannot offer,'" he wrote. | |
| The opinion, the Supreme Court noted, does not mean that universities are prohibited from considering an applicant's "discussion of how race affects his or her life". | The opinion, the Supreme Court noted, does not mean that universities are prohibited from considering an applicant's "discussion of how race affects his or her life". |
| Among the liberal judges to dissent was Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who wrote that the decision "rolls back decades of precedent and momentous progress". | |
| She added that she believes the ruling means race can no longer achieve "critical benefits" and "cements a superficial rule of colorblindness as a constitutional principle in an endemically segregated society". | |
| Another dissenting justice, Ketanji Brown Jackson, wrote: "With let-them-eat-cake obliviousness, today, the majority pulls the ripcord and announces 'colorblindness for all' by legal fiat." | |
| But Justice Roberts wrote that the dissenting justices had ignored parts of the law they did not like. | |
| "Most troubling of all is what the dissent must make these omissions to defend: a judiciary that picks winners and losers based on the color of their skin," he said. | |
| In a statement, UNC Chancellor Kevin Guskiewicz said that while it is not the outcome that the university "hoped for", it will review the decision and "take any necessary steps to comply with the law". | |
| Harvard has so far not commented on the ruling. | |
| Related Topics | Related Topics |
| US Supreme Court | US Supreme Court |
| United States | United States |