Eye on the Courts: Students for Fair Admissions

In a decision with far-reaching implications, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the race-based admission policies practiced at Harvard and UNC are unconstitutional. Will this decision promote or hinder economic mobility and opportunity? How will it impact American businesses? Below are some responses to the decision by Manhattan Institute (MI) fellows and others in our orbit:

• MI fellows James Copland and Rafael Mangual argue that with this decision, the Supreme Court is fulfilling “the Constitution’s color-blind promise.”
• MI fellow and Harvard economist Roland Fryer writes in the New York Times that universities should address racial and ethnic educational gaps earlier to create an achievement pipeline for students from all backgrounds.
• Writing in the Wall Street Journal, attorney Michael Toth argues that the Fair Admissions decision raises questions about the constitutionality of companies’ DEI efforts and racial preferences in hiring.
• A Wall Street Journal report outlines the challenges companies may face complying with the legal standard, particularly as some employees grow frustrated with Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion initiatives.
• In response to the Court’s decision, Harvard released a statement saying it would abide by the law while reaffirming its commitment to diversity and social progress. As colleges adjust to the new legal landscape, the future of college admissions looks murky.
• Manhattan Institute Paulson Policy Analyst Renu Mukherjee sat down with MI president Reihan Salam for a discussion on affirmative action and the future of colorblindness in American public life.
• Earlier this spring, the Adam Smith Society chapter at MIT hosted a thoughtful Oxford-style debate on academic DEI programs and the role of race in admissions with MI’s Thomas W. Smith Fellow Heather Mac Donald.