A Small Timeline of Major Affirmative Action Cases in the Supreme Court And How Students For Fair Admissions Inc. v. Harvard Fits Into History

By: Shir Gilad

1978: Regents of the University of California v. Bakke

In Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, the Medical School of the University of California at Davis employed two medical school admissions programs - a regular and special affirmative action admissions program. The special admissions affirmative action program reserved sixteen seats in every incoming class size of 16 for “qualified” minority students in hopes of redressing the lack of minority representation in the medical field. Allan Bakke, the plaintiff, did not qualify for the special admissions program as a white 35-year-old and therefore was reviewed under the regular admissions program both times Bakke applied and was denied each time. The plaintiff’s test scores and college GPA were higher than all admitted minority students under the special admissions program each year Bakke applied. Bakke then filed suit against the university “alleging that the special admissions program operated to exclude him on the basis of his race in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment... and § 601 of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.”

The issue in Regents of the University of California v. Bakke concerned whether the University of California’s practice of affirmative action policy violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

In an 8 to 1 decision, the Court found in favor of Bakke, but there was no majority opinion.
Four justices held that, under strict scrutiny, the use of a fixed and rigid racial quota system violated the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and Justice Powell held that quotas violated the Equal Protection Clause. The court is 5 to 1 in the opinion that a higher education public institution can constitutionally consider race as “one of many factors” for a compelling interest in a diverse student body.

Citation: Regents of Univ. of Cal. v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265, 269 (U.S. June 28, 1978) 2003: Grutter v. Bollinger

In Grutter v. Bollinger, the University of Michigan Law School reviewed applicants holistically and required admissions officials to evaluate applicants on regular materials like a personal statement, grades, test scores, etc., and “soft variables” such as recommenders’ enthusiasm, the difficulty of undergraduate course work, etc. The university also considers race as one of many factors in admissions

decisions for a “compelling interest in a diverse student body.” Barbara Grutter, the plaintiff, applied for the University of Michigan Law School but was denied as a white in-state resident. Grutter filed suit against the university, alleging that “in rejecting the applicant, the school had discriminated against her on the basis of race,” violating the Fourteenth Amendment and the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

The issue in Grutter v. Bollinger concerns whether the use of racial preferences in the University of Michigan Law School’s admissions process violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment or Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

In a 5 to 4 decision, the Court found the use of racial preferences in the University of Michigan Law School’s admissions process does not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment or Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

The Court held that the University of Michigan had narrowly tailored measures in their consideration of race in the admissions process in a compelling interest for diversity. However, Justice O’Connor held that “we expect that 25 years from now, the use of racial preferences will no longer be necessary to further the interest approved today.”

Citation: Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306, 311 (U.S. June 23, 2003) 2003: Gratz v. Bollinger

In Gratz v. Bollinger, the University of Michigan’s Office of Undergraduate Admissions employed a point system admissions process, which automatically granted 20 points to underrepresented minority students in education’s applications; established a committee for additionally reviewing some applications; and “admitted virtually every qualified applicant from [underrepresented minority] groups.” Jennifer Gratz and Patrick Hamacher, the plaintiffs, applied for the University of Michigan’s Office of Undergraduate Admissions as white in-state residents, but both were denied. Gratz and Hamacher filed suit against the university, alleging that “the university’s use of racial preference violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment or Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

The issue in Gratz v. Bollinger concerns whether the use of racial preferences in the University of Michigan’s undergraduate admissions process violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment or Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

In a 6 to 3 decision, the Court found the use of racial preferences in the University of Michigan’s undergraduate admissions process violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment or Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

The Court held that, under strict scrutiny, the university’s measures were too broad because the consideration of race was not employed on an individualized basis.

Citation: Gratz v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 244, 249 (U.S. June 23, 2003)

2016: Fisher v. University of Texas

In Fisher v. University of Texas, the University of Texas at Austin employed an admissions policy that automatically admitted any in-state student in the top 10 percent of their high school class (a race-neutral program). All other students are reviewed holistically under the university’s regular admissions process, which includes standardized scores, GPA, involvement, and numerous other factors, including race. Abigail N. Fisher, the plaintiff, did not qualify for their top 10 percent program, so Fisher applied through the undergraduate admission process as a white female. The University of Texas denied the plaintiff’s application. Fisher then filed suit against the university as the “consideration of race as part of its holistic-review process [allegedly] disadvantages her and other Caucasian applicants, in violation of the Equal Protection Clause.”

The issue in Fisher v. University of Texas concerned whether the University of Texas at Austin’s consideration of race as a factor in an undergraduate university’s admissions is permitted under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

In a 7 to 1 decision, the Court found that the consideration of race as a factor in an undergraduate university’s admissions is permitted.

The Court held that in assessing the constitutionality of a public university’s affirmative-action program, the program must be held under a review of “strict scrutiny.” The Court defines “strict scrutiny” as the demonstration of a university program for “its ‘‘purpose or interest is both constitutionally permissible and substantial, and that its use of the classification is necessary... to the accomplishment of its purpose.’

Citation: Fisher v. Univ. of Tex., 579 U.S. 365, 365 (U.S. June 23, 2016)
2022: Students for Fair Admissions Inc. v. President & Fellows of Harvard College

Nearly 25 years since the Grutter v. Bollinger decision, the Court revisits the need for affirmative action in Students for Fair Admissions Inc. v. President & Fellows of Harvard College.
In Students for Fair Admissions Inc. v. President & Fellows of Harvard College, Harvard College considers race as one of many factors in their admissions process. The Students for Fair Admissions, the plaintiff, filed suit against the university for discriminating against Asian American applicants.

The issue in SFFA v. Harvard concerns whether higher education institutions can consider race in admissions and, if so, whether Harvard College’s race-conscious admissions process violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment or Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The Court heard the case on October 31, 2022, and the results are pending. The opinion of this case can alter how higher education institutions review applications and determine, by the Courts, whether there is a need for affirmative action or if the time has come to consider race consciousness unnecessary and whether a diverse student body continues to be a compelling interest.

Image Source:

https://www.goacta.org/2023/06/retiring-harvard-scholar-warns-of-woke-self-censorship/