Judge Rules for UNC in Admissions Case (over racial preferences)

James G. Martin Center for Academic Renewal ^ | December 13, 2021 | George Leef

[karpov]

In 2014, Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA) filed suit against the University of North Carolina. Its complaint argued that the university had engaged in intentional discrimination on the basis of race and ethnicity to the detriment of SFFA members.

The suit followed in a line of cases challenging the admissions policies of universities, where students from certain groups were given preferences over students who were not in those groups. In a pair of 2003 cases involving the University of Michigan, the Supreme Court ruled that universities were in violation of the law if they used a rigid quota system (Gratz v. Bollinger), but were not in violation if they employed a “holistic” approach that appeared to consider each applicant individually (Grutter v. Bollinger).

Race, the Court held, could be a “plus factor” in the admissions process, but it could not be “determinative.”

SFFA contended that UNC’s “racial preference for each underrepresented minority student (which equates to a penalty imposed upon white and Asian-American applicants) is so large that race becomes the defining feature of his or her application.” The complaint also argued that UNC could achieve the objective of a more diverse student body, which it claims to think very important, without the use of racial preferences.

Litigation usually moves slowly through the courts and this case was not decided until October, when Judge Loretta Biggs ruled that UNC’s admission system, while race-conscious, did not violate the law. Her decision tracked the “holistic” concept that was approved in Grutter: “The Admissions Office instructs readers to consider each applicant as an individual based on all relevant factors revealed in his or her application in order to understand the candidate holistically and comprehensively.”

Furthermore, UNC had guarded itself against Gratz.

[alternatives?]

Quotas hidden by fluff.

[KC_Conspirator]

An Obummer Judge, ruling for bigotry.

[libertylover]

You’ll never end discrimination by discriminating.

[Chode]

how is it NOT determinative???

[AJFavish]

You are correct. See how UCLA School of Law does it in the law review article linked here: https://allanfavish.com/index.php/affirmative-actionracial-preferences/134-ccri-and-hopwood

[dangus]

“The complaint also argued that UNC could achieve the objective of a more diverse student body, which it claims to think very important, without the use of racial preferences.”

Yes, but not the CORRECT diversity.

[Myrddin]

When I was at UCSD in 1974 to 1976, there was a "5% affirmative action" set-aside. That immediately excluded 5% of the academically qualified applicants in favor of the "set-aside". The UC system tracked the graduation rates of those admitted under the "set-aside". Only 1% of the body of students admitted under affirmative action graduated. CA passed Prop 208 to overturn the stupid policy. That held for while, but the leftists have "worked around" that impediment.