Supreme Court rules against affirmative action programs in colleges
Click Here to Manage Email Alerts
Key takeaways:
- The court majority claimed the admissions programs violate a clause in the Fourteenth Amendment.
- HHS said the decision weakens efforts to improve access to higher education among underrepresented groups.
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled against the use of affirmative action programs during admissions processes at colleges and universities, potentially reducing the number of underrepresented students in medical education, experts said.
The plaintiff, Students for Fair Admissions, had filed separate lawsuits against Harvard University and the University of North Carolina, arguing that the universities violate the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, which prohibits discrimination of race, gender or ethnicity in programs receiving federal financial assistance.
An AMA press release previously reported that Students for Fair Admissions said that the colleges’ admissions policies “unfairly discriminate against white and Asian applicants for the sake of a more diverse and inclusive study body.”
Overall, the Supreme Court agreed with the plaintiff, ruling 6-3 in the Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. University of North Carolina, et al. case and 6-2 in the Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College case. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson recused herself from the Harvard case because she served on the university’s board of overseers, according to reporting by Reuters.
Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. wrote in the opinion that the admissions programs lacked “sufficiently focused and measurable objectives warranting the use of race,” while employing race in a negative manner and racial stereotyping.
In a dissenting opinion, Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote that the court’s decision “stands in the way and rolls back decades of precedent and momentous progress.”
“The Court cements a superficial rule of colorblindness as a constitutional principle in an endemically segregated society where race has always mattered and continues to matter,” she wrote. “The Court subverts the constitutional guarantee of equal protection by further entrenching racial inequality in education, the very foundation of our democratic government and pluralistic society. Because the Court’s opinion is not grounded in law or fact and contravenes the vision of equality embodied in the Fourteenth Amendment, I dissent.”
Speaking to Healio, Lawrence O. Gostin, JD, Founding Linda D. & Timothy J. O’Neill Professor of Global Health Law and director of the O’Neill Institute for National and Global Health at Georgetown University, said “the Supreme Court has abandoned decades of precedent, just as it did with Dobbs on abortion rights,” and “underrepresented students, and in other sectors, will have compounding disadvantages due to the Supreme Court's actions.”
“The Court assumes that African Americans now have an equal playing field, so they no longer need affirmative action. But nothing could be further from the truth,” he said. “On virtually every measure, including income, education and health status, Blacks have worse outcomes than whites. While these cases involved higher education, they could have profound consequences for medical and public health programs designed to achieve equity, such as the allocation of scarce resources such as vaccines. We saw the unequal outcomes from COVID-19, and many states decided to use race among many factors to give preference in access to vaccines early in the pandemic.”
In a statement, HHS Secretary Xavier Becerra said the decision weakens efforts to make higher education accessible to underrepresented groups. According to the Association of American Medical Colleges, the number of Black and Hispanic first-year students entering medical schools in 2021 rose by 21% and 7.1% from the prior year, respectively. Despite this progress, Becerra said “there is still a significant deficit in the number of Black and Latino doctors and medical students.” As Healio previously reported, several states already banned affirmative action admissions policies and are now experiencing decreases in college enrollment and completion of STEM degrees among underrepresented groups.
However, according to The New York Times, the University of California system took steps to eventually increase the number of Black and Hispanic students in some its schools after affirmative action was banned in the state. That has not been the case in other states where race-conscious admissions have been prohibited.
“This ruling will make it even more difficult for the nation’s colleges and universities to help create future health experts and workers that reflect the diversity of our great nation. The health and well-being of Americans will suffer as a result,” Becerra said.
The ACP also released a statement opposing the ruling. ACP President Omar T. Atiq, MD, FACP, said that diversity within medical and education settings has shown to improve learning outcomes “by increasing active thinking and intellectual engagement skills and increases understanding of and empathy for diverse cultures.”
“Medical schools and other institutions of higher education should consider a person’s race and ethnicity, alongside other factors that are often considered like socioeconomic status and geographic location, as part of evaluating applicants to counter both past and current discrimination,” Atiq said.
He added that ACP will continue to support policies “that can help to increase diversity and promote equity.”
References:
- Internal medicine physicians disappointed by court decision against affirmative action in admissions. https://www.acponline.org/acp-newsroom/internal-medicine-physicians-disappointed-by-court-decision-against-affirmative-action-in-admissions. Published June 29, 2023. Accessed June 29, 2023.
- Medical school enrollment more diverse in 2021. https://www.aamc.org/news/press-releases/medical-school-enrollment-more-diverse-2021. Published Dec. 8, 2021. Accessed June 29, 2023.
- Recognizing diversity’s benefits in classrooms — and exam rooms. https://www.ama-assn.org/about/leadership/recognizing-diversity-s-benefits-classrooms-and-exam-rooms. Published Oct. 31. 2022. Accessed June 29, 2023.
- Ruling may mean a sharp drop in Black and Latino students. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/29/us/politics/affirmative-action-college-students-black-latino.html. Accessed June 30, 2023.
- Statement from HHS Secretary Xavier Becerra on the Supreme Court’s Harvard, University of North Carolina Affirmative Action Decision. https://www.hhs.gov/about/news/2023/06/29/statement-from-hhs-secretary-xavier-becerra-on-the-supreme-courts-harvard-university-of-north-carolina-affirmative-action-decision.html. Published June 29, 2023. Accessed June 29, 2023.
- Students For Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/20-1199_hgdj.pdf. Accessed June 29, 2023.
- Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. https://www.justice.gov/crt/fcs/TitleVI. Accessed June 29, 2023.
- U.S. Supreme Court pick Jackson to recuse from Harvard race case. https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/us-supreme-court-pick-jackson-recuse-harvard-race-case-2022-03-23/. June 29, 2023.
Perspective
Back to Top
The Supreme Court’s decision to end affirmative action programs in higher education erases decades of progress and deeply threatens our ability to address our nation’s growing racial and ethnic health disparities.
Systemic racism in our nation continues to result in poor health outcomes and preventable deaths each day. Disproportionately high rates of maternal mortality and COVID-related deaths in Black and Brown communities are just two examples of racial inequities, and the Supreme Court’s disappointing decision will undermine efforts to achieve racial justice.
Representation matters, and we must have student bodies that truly represent our nation’s diverse communities to create a future workforce of health care professionals, educators, researchers, and public health and health policy experts with diverse lived experiences capable of developing inclusive and culturally responsive strategies to dismantle systemic racism and achieve health equity.
Studies have shown that health outcomes improve when health care teams have greater racial and ethnic diversity that reflect the diversity of the communities they serve. Without a diverse pipeline of students empowered to become our next generation of health professionals and leaders, existing inequities will be further exacerbated in African American, Latino, American Indian, Alaska Native, Asian American, Native Hawaiian, Pacific Islander, Middle Eastern, North African and other communities of color.
In addition, despite the attempt to separate Asian Americans from other communities of color in the court cases, it is important to note that the majority of Asian Americans support affirmative action and will be harmed by the Supreme Court’s decision, as Asian Americans are not a monolith and often suffer from the “model minority” myth due to the lack of disaggregated racial and ethnic data, resulting in disparate outcomes that are frequently overlooked.
It is unfortunate that the Supreme Court has made a decision that will reverse our country’s progress, jeopardize our nation’s health, and perpetuate systemic racism by limiting access to higher education among communities of color. We must, however, make every effort to ensure that the backgrounds, identities and experiences of our future health professionals and leaders reflect the full cultural, socioeconomic, gender, ability and geographic diversity of our nation’s communities in order to comprehensively meet the needs of and improve health outcomes for every person and family living in the United States, as we strive to achieve racial justice and health equity.
Collapse
Healio Interview
Click Here to Manage Email Alerts