We Know How the Old Dominion University Terrorist Got a Gun
Yes, This NYT Headline Is Real...and They Appear to Have a Muslim Terrorist...
We Got Some More Manpower Heading to the Middle East
CNN's Kaitlin Collins Set Up Scott Jennings Perfectly to Torch the Biden Administration
My Word, Ms. Spanberger, What Fresh Hell Is This Tweet?
Victory for President Trump’s DOGE – ACLJ Amicus Brief Affirmed
Our Long Road to War With Iran
Did We Avoid Another Terrorist Attack This Week? This Arrest in Texas Makes...
Globalize the Intifada? Authorities in the Netherlands Are Investigating Fire at Synagogue
What Can We Do About Islam in America?
More Questions Have Surfaced About Eric Swalwell's Eligibility to Run for California Gover...
Pete Hegseth Blasts Reports That the United States Did Not Plan on Iran...
All Six American Crewman Aboard Refueling Aircraft That Crashed in Iraq Confirmed Dead
Ex-Top Gun Pilot Says The Threat of Iranian Sleeper Cells 'Is Not a...
Even Obama's Former DHS Secretary Is Calling on Democrats to Fund DHS
Tipsheet

Supreme Court Strikes Down Affirmative Action in College Admissions

The United States Supreme Court ruled on Thursday that admissions systems which factor race into decisions — specifically those used at Harvard and the University of North Carolina in this case — violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Advertisement

In the majority opinion authored by Chief Justice John Roberts — joined by Justices Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett — the Supreme Court says that:

...the Harvard and UNC admissions programs cannot be reconciled with the guarantees of the Equal Protection Clause. Both programs 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. We have never permitted admissions programs to work in that way, and we will not do so today.

At the same time, as all parties agree, nothing in this opinion should be construed as prohibiting universities from considering an applicant’s discussion of how race affected his or her life, be it through discrimination, inspiration, or otherwise. But, despite the dissent’s assertion to the contrary, universities may not simply establish through application essays or other means the regime we hold unlawful today...

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. In other words, the student must be treated based on his or her experiences as an individual—not on the basis of race.

Many universities have for too long done just the opposite. And in doing so, they have concluded, wrongly, that the touchstone of an individual’s identity is not challenges bested, skills built, or lessons learned but the color of their skin. Our constitutional history does not tolerate that choice.

Advertisement

Earlier this year, Townhall interviewed students and others involved with Students for Fair Admissions — the group which brought the affirmative action question to the highest court in the land — about what the now-unconstitutional admissions practices meant for their families:


The full majority opinion and dissents are embedded below.

This is a developing story and may be updated.

Editor's Note: Through affirmative action, the radical left perpetuated racism and waged war on meritocracy, but today, the Supreme Court has defended the American Dream.

Advertisement

Help support Townhall's reporting on the High Court and all of its landmark decisions. Join Townhall VIP today and use promo code AMERICANDREAM to get 50% off your VIP membership.

Join the conversation as a VIP Member

Recommended

Trending on Townhall Videos

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement