The Domino Effect: Discussing the Future Implications of Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. Harvard

Authors

Marissa C. Meredith

Abstract

Since 1978, the United States Supreme Court has grappled with creating fair policies and just parameters to enable institutions of higher education to incorporate race -conscious admission policies to diversify students' educational experience.¹ The Court began this vital discussion with its landmark ruling in Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, where it determined not just that diversity in education was a compelling state interest that could survive strict scrutiny,² but also that it could not be achieved through the use of a quota system or a specialized track.3 The Court continued shaping the parameters of higher education admission policies through several other landmark cases, such as Fisher v. the University of Texas; Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action; Gratz v. Bollinger; and Grutter v. Bollinger, to the present with the consolidated case of Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College.⁴ Although the Court's previous decisions highlighted the importance of race-conscious admissions policies to provide students with a robust educational experience, its most recent decision shifted gears-removing the foundational principles of affirmative action.

First Page

312

Recommended Citation

Marissa C. Meredith, The Domino Effect: Discussing the Future Implications of Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. Harvard, 62 Duq. L. Rev. 312 (2024).
Available at: https://dsc.duq.edu/dlr/vol62/iss2/6