Students for Fair Admissions

Last updated

Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA) is a nonprofit legal advocacy organization founded in 2014 by conservative activist Edward Blum for the purpose of challenging affirmative action admissions policies at schools. [1] [2] In June 2023, the Supreme Court ruled in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard that affirmative action programs in college admissions (excepting military academies) are unconstitutional.

Contents

SFFA has been described by its opponents as an anti-affirmative action group that objects to the use of race as one of the factors in college admissions. [3]

Lawsuits

SFFA is an offshoot of the Project on Fair Representation. SFFA's federal lawsuits have targeted Harvard University and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Blum has set up websites to seek out plaintiffs. [4] [5] [6]

Unlike the Fisher case, in which the plaintiff, Abigail Fisher, made herself public, the students rejected by Harvard and UNC have not revealed their identities because they want to shield themselves from potential retaliation. [7]

Students for Fair Admissions v. President and Fellows of Harvard College [8] was dismissed in October 2019, [9] and that ruling was subsequently upheld on appeal. [10] In February 2021, however, SFFA petitioned the Supreme Court of the United States to review the case. [11] In June 2023, the Supreme Court issued a landmark opinion that ruled affirmative action programs in college admissions unconstitutional. [12]

In September 2023, the SFFA filed a lawsuit challenging the use of race and ethnicity as admissions factors at the United States Military Academy, as the Supreme Court exempted military academies from its ruling in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard. In February 2024, the organization's case against West Point Academy for considering race in admissions was denied certiorari upon appeal to the Supreme Court after losses in local courts. [13]

In December 2024, a federal judge ruled that the United States Naval Academy was exempt from the decision and could use race in their admission decisions, citing "military cohesion and other national security factors". [14]

See also

Related Research Articles

Reverse discrimination is a term used to describe discrimination against members of a dominant or majority group, in favor of members of a minority or historically disadvantaged group.

Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265 (1978), was a landmark decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that involved a dispute over whether preferential treatment for minorities could reduce educational opportunities for whites without violating the Constitution. It upheld affirmative action, allowing race to be one of several factors in college admission policy. However, the court ruled that specific racial quotas, such as the 16 out of 100 seats set aside for minority students by the University of California, Davis, School of Medicine, were impermissible.

Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306 (2003), was a landmark case of the Supreme Court of the United States concerning affirmative action in student admissions. The Court held that a student admissions process that favors "underrepresented minority groups" did not violate the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause so long as it took into account other factors evaluated on an individual basis for every applicant. The decision largely upheld the Court's decision in Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978), which allowed race to be a consideration in admissions policy but held racial quotas to be unconstitutional. In Gratz v. Bollinger (2003), a separate case decided on the same day as Grutter, the Court struck down a points-based admissions system that awarded an automatic bonus to the admissions scores of minority applicants.

Gratz v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 244 (2003), was a United States Supreme Court case regarding the University of Michigan undergraduate affirmative action admissions policy. In a 6–3 decision announced on June 23, 2003, Chief Justice Rehnquist, writing for the Court, ruled the University's point system's "predetermined point allocations" that awarded 20 points towards admission to underrepresented minorities "ensures that the diversity contributions of applicants cannot be individually assessed" and was therefore unconstitutional.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">1996 California Proposition 209</span> Referendum banning affirmative action

Proposition 209 is a California ballot proposition which, upon approval in November 1996, amended the state constitution to prohibit state governmental institutions from considering race, sex, or ethnicity, specifically in the areas of public employment, public contracting, and public education. Modeled on the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the California Civil Rights Initiative was authored by two California academics, Glynn Custred and Tom Wood. It was the first electoral test of affirmative action policies in North America. It passed with 55% in favor to 45% opposed, thereby banning affirmative action in the state's public sector.

DeFunis v. Odegaard, 416 U.S. 312 (1974), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the case had become moot and so declined to render a decision on the merits. American student Marco DeFunis, who had been denied admission to the University of Washington School of Law in the state of Washington before he was provisionally admitted during the pendency of the case, was slated to graduate within a few months of the decision being rendered.

<i>Hopwood v. Texas</i> 1996 U.S. court case

Hopwood v. Texas, 78 F.3d 932, was the first successful legal challenge to a university's affirmative action policy in student admissions since Regents of the University of California v. Bakke. In Hopwood, four white plaintiffs who had been rejected from University of Texas at Austin's School of Law challenged the institution's admissions policy on equal protection grounds and prevailed. After seven years as a precedent in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, the Hopwood decision was abrogated by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2003.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Michigan Civil Rights Initiative</span> American ballot initiative

The Michigan Civil Rights Initiative (MCRI), or Proposal 2, was a ballot initiative in the U.S. state of Michigan that passed into Michigan Constitutional law by a 58% to 42% margin on November 7, 2006, according to results officially certified by the Michigan Secretary of State. By Michigan law, the Proposal became law on December 22, 2006. MCRI was a citizen initiative aimed at banning consideration of race, color, sex, or religion in admission to colleges, jobs, and other publicly funded institutions – effectively prohibiting some affirmative action by public institutions based on those factors. The Proposal's constitutionality was challenged in federal court, but its constitutionality was ultimately upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Affirmative action in the United States</span>

In the United States, affirmative action consists of government-mandated, government-approved, and voluntary private programs granting special consideration to groups considered or classified as historically excluded, specifically racial minorities and women. These programs tend to focus on access to education and employment in order to redress the disadvantages associated with past and present discrimination. Another goal of affirmative action policies is to ensure that public institutions, such as universities, hospitals, and police forces, are more representative of the populations they serve.

Constitutional colorblindness is a legal and philosophical principle suggesting that the Constitution, particularly the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, should be interpreted as prohibiting the government from considering race in its laws, policies, or decisions. According to this doctrine, any use of racial classifications, whether intended to benefit or disadvantage certain groups, is viewed as inherently discriminatory and thus unconstitutional.

<i>Tompkins v. Alabama State University</i> Legal case involving affirmative action

Tompkins v. Alabama State University, 15 F. Supp. 2d 1160, was a legal case involving affirmative action, that was decided in a United States Federal Court.

Richard D. Kahlenberg is an American writer who has written about a variety of education, labor and housing issues.

Fisher v. University of Texas, 570 U.S. 297 (2013), also known as Fisher I, is a United States Supreme Court case concerning the affirmative action admissions policy of the University of Texas at Austin. The Supreme Court voided the lower appellate court's ruling in favor of the university and remanded the case, holding that the lower court had not applied the standard of strict scrutiny, articulated in Grutter v. Bollinger (2003) and Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978), to its admissions program. The Court's ruling in Fisher took Grutter and Bakke as given and did not directly revisit the constitutionality of using race as a factor in college admissions.

<i>Cutting the Mustard</i> 1987 non-fiction book by Marjorie Heins

Cutting the Mustard: Affirmative Action and the Nature of Excellence is a 1987 non-fiction book by civil libertarian and United States lawyer Marjorie Heins about the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and its relationship to affirmative action and sexism. Heins discusses the case of Nancy Richardson, dean of student affairs at the Boston University School of Theology, who was removed from her position by the school's administration in 1981. Heins represented Richardson in an unsuccessful lawsuit against Boston University for wrongful termination and sexism. Cutting the Mustard recounts the case, interspersing reflections on the lawsuit with a discussion of relevant case law, decisions by the Supreme Court of the United States related to affirmative action and multiple criticisms of contradictory court decisions in affirmative-action cases.

Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, 600 U.S. 181 (2023), is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in which the court held that race-based affirmative action programs in college admissions processes violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. With its companion case, Students for Fair Admissions v. University of North Carolina, the Supreme Court effectively overruled Grutter v. Bollinger (2003) and Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978), which validated some affirmative action in college admissions provided that race had a limited role in decisions.

Richard Henry Sander is an American legal scholar. He is the Jesse Dukeminier Professor in Law at the University of California, Los Angeles School of Law and a critic of affirmative action. Sander is primarily known for producing the mismatch theory.

Edward Jay Blum is an American conservative litigant who opposes classifications and preferences based on race and ethnicity.

Fisher v. University of Texas, 579 U.S. 365 (2016), also known as Fisher II, is a United States Supreme Court case which held that the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit correctly found that the University of Texas at Austin's undergraduate admissions policy survived strict scrutiny, in accordance with Fisher v. University of Texas (2013), which ruled that strict scrutiny should be applied to determine the constitutionality of the University's race-conscious admissions policy.

Peter Arcidiacono is an American economist and econometrician. After receiving his Ph.D. from the University of Wisconsin–Madison in 1999, he has taught at Duke University. He became a fellow of the Econometric Society in 2018.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Diversity, equity, and inclusion</span> Organizational framework

Diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) are organizational frameworks which seek to promote the fair treatment and full participation of all people, particularly groups who have historically been underrepresented or subject to discrimination on the basis of identity or disability. These three notions together represent "three closely linked values" which organizations seek to institutionalize through DEI frameworks. The concepts predate this terminology and other variations sometimes include terms such as belonging, justice, and accessibility. As such, frameworks such as inclusion and diversity (I&D), diversity, equity, inclusion and belonging (DEIB), justice, equity, diversity and inclusion, or diversity, equity, inclusion and accessibility exist.

References

  1. ↑ Borter, Gabriella (June 29, 2023). "Factbox: Who's who in the Supreme Court's affirmative action cases". Reuters . Archived from the original on July 8, 2023. Retrieved July 8, 2023.
  2. ↑ "Project on Fair Representation Files Suits against Harvard and UNC". Students For Fair Admissions. Retrieved 1 August 2016.
  3. ↑ Ko, Lisa (October 14, 2018). "Opinions: The Myth of the Interchangeable Asian". Opinions. The New York Times .
  4. ↑ "Harvard University Not Fair". Not Fair Harvard. Retrieved 1 August 2016.
  5. ↑ "Not Fair: UNC". The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Not Fair. Retrieved 1 August 2016.
  6. ↑ "Not Fair: UW". The University of Wisconsin at Madison Not Fair. Retrieved 1 August 2016.
  7. ↑ Edwards, Giles (29 July 2016). "Abigail Fisher: Affirmative action plaintiff 'proud' of academic record". www.bbc.com. BBC News. Retrieved 1 August 2016.
  8. ↑ Wood, Josh (18 October 2018). "'The wolf of racial bias': the admissions lawsuit rocking Harvard". The Guardian . Retrieved 2024-12-06.
  9. ↑ Binkley, Collin (2019-10-01). "Federal judge upholds affirmative action at Harvard". Associated Press . Archived from the original on 2023-07-08. Retrieved 2024-12-06.
  10. ↑ "STUDENTS FOR FAIR ADMISSIONS, INC. v. PRESIDENT AND FELLOWS OF HARVARD COLLEGE" (PDF).
  11. ↑ Lu, Vivi E. (2021-02-25). "Students for Fair Admissions Petitions SCOTUS to Take Up Suit Against Harvard's Race-Conscious Admissions". The Harvard Crimson . Retrieved 2024-12-06.
  12. ↑ https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/20-1199_hgdj.pdf
  13. ↑ Students for Fair Admissions v USMA West Point Academy, unsigned (United States Supreme Court02 February 2024).
  14. ↑ Skene, Lea (2024-12-06). "Judge upholds use of race in Naval Academy admissions, saying a diverse military is stronger". AP News . Retrieved 2024-12-06.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.