In a 6-3 ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court has rejected the use of race in admissions policies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and Harvard University.
The United State Supreme Court heard oral arguments of Students for Fair Admissions v. University of North Carolina (SFFA v. UNC) on October 31. The case allows the high court to correct a historical wrong and end racial preferences in college admissions. The plaintiffs, SFFA, asked in their hearing request for the high court to reverse its 2003 ruling...
Supporters and critics will have to wait — likely until next June — to learn the fate of race-based admissions at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. The U.S. Supreme Court heard more than 2 1/2 hours of arguments Monday for and against UNC’s admissions policies.
The U.S. solicitor general will take part in oral arguments next month in a U.S. Supreme Court case dealing with admissions policies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. The nation’s highest court announced Friday that oral arguments on Oct. 31 will last 90 minutes. That’s 30 minutes longer than the time allotment originally announced.
A filing this month in the U.S. Supreme Court accuses University of North Carolina leaders of making the same types of arguments that segregationists made against the landmark 1954 ruling Brown v. Board of Education. The brief from Students for Fair Admissions marks the latest salvo in that group’s battle against UNC’s race-based admissions policy. The nation’s highest court will hear oral arguments in the case on Oct. 31.
RALEIGH — In June 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court took a step toward weakening racial preferences in university admissions, based on policies at the University of Texas. The court did not reverse previous decisions upholding racial preferences, but it said Texas’ policy was unconstitutional. Race can be considered in admissions policies, but there is a point at which such preferences become illegal.
CHAPEL HILL — Faculty members of UNC-Chapel Hill, UNC-Greensboro, and UCLA have received a $540,000 grant from the Law School Admission Council to continue their study of whether racial diversity in law schools generates educational benefits.
A federal Department of Education examination of admissions policies at N.C. State University does not reflect an attempt by a Washington-area think tank to reduce the ranks of minority students on campus.
RALEIGH — In January, a campaign began in Michigan to prohibit racial preferences. The campaign for the “Michigan Civil Rights Initiative” (MCRI), is led by executive director Jennifer Gratz. Her name may sound familiar because she filed one of the lawsuits against race preferences in the University of Michigan that led to the Supreme Court decision last year upholding a narrow use of race by universities in admissions decisions. The MCRI states, “The state shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting.”
Conservatives willing to brave the touchy-feely miasma of the Supreme Court's recent decision of Grutter v. Bollinger, which allows universities to consider race in admissions as an element of diversity, should be heartened by the ruling, flawed as it is. Here's why.
The recent Supreme Court ruling that state universities may use racial preferences in order to obtain a “diverse” student body — provided that they aren’t blatant about it — has met with praise from education leaders in North Carolina.
