US Supreme Court stops race-based university admission

1 / 3
Protesters for and against affirmative active demonstrate in Capitol Hill in Washington, DC, on June 29, 2023. (Getty Images/AFP)
2 / 3
The US Supreme Court ruled that race-conscious admission policies used by Harvard and the University of North Carolina (shown in this picture) violate the Constitution, bringing an end to affirmative action in higher education. (Getty Images/AFP)
3 / 3
A view of Harvard University in Cambridge, Massachusetts, whose race-conscious admission policies were declared a violation of the Constitution by the US Supreme Court.
Short Url
Updated 30 June 2023
Follow

US Supreme Court stops race-based university admission

  • Ruling sides with Students for Fair Admissions group that sued Harvard University and the University of North Carolina over their admissions policies
  • Group argued that while the affirmative action favored Black Americans, it discriminated against Asian-Americans and others

WASHINGTON: The US Supreme Court on Thursday banned the use of race and ethnicity in university admissions, dealing a major blow to a decades-old practice that boosted educational opportunities for African-Americans and other minorities.

One year after overturning the guarantee of a woman’s right to have an abortion, the court’s conservative majority again demonstrated its readiness to scrap liberal policies set in law since the 1960s.

The ruling against “affirmative action,” delivered by a court heavily influenced by three justices appointed by Donald Trump during his presidency, drew cheers from conservatives but was blasted by progressives.
President Joe Biden expressed his “severe disappointment,” and criticized the justices as “not a normal court.”
“Discrimination still exists in America,” he said at the White House. “I believe our colleges are stronger when they are racially diverse.”
However, in an interview with MSNBC he pushed back on liberal demands to reorganize the powerful Supreme Court, including by adding to the nine justices, all of whom serve lifetime appointments.
“That may do too much harm,” he said. “If we start the process of trying to expand the court, we’re going to politicize it maybe forever in a way that’s not healthy.”




A view of Harvard University in Cambridge, Massachusetts, whose race-conscious admission policies were declared a violation of the Constitution by the US Supreme Court. (AP Photo)

The justices broke six to three along conservative-liberal lines in the decision, seen as a heavy defeat to efforts to expand diversity in school admissions and business and government hiring.
Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the majority opinion that while affirmative action was “well-intentioned” it could not last forever, and amounted to unconstitutional discrimination against others.
“The student must be treated based on his or her experiences as an individual — not on the basis of race,” Roberts wrote.
The court said that universities were free to consider an applicant’s background — whether, for example, they grew up experiencing racism — in weighing their application over more academically qualified students.
But deciding primarily based on whether the applicant is white, Black or other is itself racial discrimination, Roberts wrote.
“Our constitutional history does not tolerate that choice,” he said.
In a scathing rebuttal, Justice Sonia Sotomayor accused the majority of being colorblind to the reality of “an endemically segregated society.”
“Ignoring race will not equalize a society that is racially unequal,” she wrote.




Supporters of affirmative action protest near the US Supreme Court Building on Capitol Hill in Washington on June 29, 2023. (Getty Images/AFP)

The court sided with an activist group, Students for Fair Admissions, that sued the oldest private and public institutions of higher education in the country — Harvard University and the University of North Carolina (UNC) — over their admissions policies.
The group claimed that race-conscious admissions policies discriminated against Asian Americans competing to enter the two universities.
Harvard and UNC, like a number of other competitive US schools, consider an applicant’s race or ethnicity as a factor to ensure a diverse student body and representation of minorities.
Such affirmative action policies arose from the Civil Rights Movement in the 1960s aiming to help address the legacy of discrimination against African Americans.
Some conservatives argue that the policy has outlived its need due to significant gains by Black people and other minorities.
“This is a great day for America,” said Trump, who often celebrates his success at building the court’s conservative majority.
Kenny Xu, a member of the board of Students for Fair Admissions, said the judgment will reduce prejudice against Asian-American students.
“They discriminate against Asians to make room for Black Americans,” he told CNN.
“If you’re an Asian-American, you had to score 273 points higher on the SAT to have the same chance of admission as a Black person at Harvard. Is that fair?” he said, referring to the standard university exam.




Supporters of affirmative action protest near the US Supreme Court Building on Capitol Hill in Washington on June 29, 2023. (Getty Images/AFP)

But the ruling was another major setback to progressives after the court overturned the landmark 1973 “Roe v. Wade” decision guaranteeing a woman’s right to abortion.
The end of federally guaranteed abortion rights almost immediately led to half of the 50 states banning or severely curtailing the practice.
The affirmative action ruling could have the same effect of many states and institutions, halting programs designed to give disadvantaged minorities extra consideration in the competitive admissions process.
Sotomayor said it would also chill any university’s effort to weigh admissions on values other than test scores.
Democratic Senator Cory Booker, an African American, called it a “devastating blow” to the US education system.
“Affirmative action has been a tool to break down systemic barriers and we must continue to advance our ideals of inclusivity & opportunity for all,” he said on Twitter.
At Harvard, summer school student Mayan McClinton, 17, said that pushing for minorities like herself helps all people.
“It’s pretty unfair to assume that we’re sort of taking these spots away from wealthier white students who do have other opportunities,” she said.
 


8 in 10 British Muslims face ‘financial faith penalty’ when seeking home finance, survey finds

Updated 5 sec ago
Follow

8 in 10 British Muslims face ‘financial faith penalty’ when seeking home finance, survey finds

  • Restricted choices plague potential buyers

LONDON: Eight in 10 British Muslims say their home finance choices are restricted because of their faith, according to a new national survey that highlighted what researchers describe as a growing “financial faith penalty” in the UK housing market.

The report, published by Islamic home finance fintech firm Offa, found that 80 percent of Muslim respondents believe their religious beliefs limit their access to suitable home finance, while those who do use Islamic products often face slower decisions, heavier paperwork and poorer customer experiences than in the conventional mortgage market.

Based on surveys of 1,000 British Muslims conducted by Muslim Census, and 2,000 non-Muslims carried out by OnePoll, the research calls on providers, brokers and policymakers to modernize Islamic home finance and improve access to Sharia-compliant products.

Among the 24.3 percent of British Muslims who have used Islamic home finance, just 5 percent said they had received a same-day decision.

Some 62 percent waited up to two weeks, while 33 percent waited more than 15 days, including 16 percent who waited over a month.

Long decision times were cited as the biggest challenge by 28 percent of respondents, followed by excessive paperwork (22.6 percent) and poor customer service (18.9 percent).

Islamic home finance differs from conventional mortgages by avoiding interest and steering investment away from sectors considered harmful to society, including gambling, alcohol, tobacco, arms trading and animal testing.

Sagheer Malik, chief commercial officer and managing director of home finance at Offa, said the findings showed British Muslims were being underserved by outdated systems.

Malik said: “Property is the asset class of choice for many of the UK’s 3.87 million Muslims, both as a route to generational wealth and as a long-term financial foundation, yet our insightful research report reveals that British Muslims are being underserved and deterred by slow, outdated and opaque Islamic home finance provision.

“This is not a niche concern. It goes to the heart of financial fairness and inclusion in modern Britain.”

He added that Muslims deserved Sharia-compliant products that matched mainstream standards on “price, speed and simplicity.”

Despite strong demand, uptake remains low.

Only 12.8 percent of British Muslims surveyed said they currently use Islamic home finance, with a further 11.5 percent having done so in the past. More than three quarters (75.7 percent) have never used it.

Faith plays a central role in financial decisions, with 94.2 percent saying it is important that their financial products align with their ethical or religious beliefs. Yet more than half of those using conventional mortgages said they felt unhappy or uneasy about doing so because of their faith.

The study also found that British Muslims share similar home ownership aspirations to the wider population, with 79.1 percent citing the desire to provide a stable home for their family, while 18.6 percent said building generational wealth was their main motivation. Only 2.2 percent said they did not want to own a home.

The report suggests Islamic finance could appeal beyond Muslim communities. While 64 percent of non-Muslim respondents had never heard of Islamic home finance, 63 percent said they favored its ethical principles once explained.

Younger generations were the most receptive, with 43 percent of Generation Z and 37 percent of millennials saying they would consider using Islamic home finance, compared with just 7 percent of baby boomers. More than three quarters of Gen Z and 72 percent of millennials also said it was important that their finance provider avoided investing in ethically harmful sectors.

Offa said the findings pointed to an opportunity to expand ethical finance in the UK, provided the industry can deliver faster, simpler and more transparent services.