Gutting Grutter: The Effect of the Loss of Affirmative Action on Diversity Among Physicians
Over the last four decades, race-conscious admission policies have been the subject of heated judicial and social controversy. In 1978, in the case Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, the consideration of race was held to be permissible to serve the compelling interest of promoting diversity in higher education. Since then, this issue has come up before the Supreme Court several
times. In October 2022, the Supreme Court of the United States heard oral arguments in two cases—Students for Fair Admissions v. President & Fellows of Harvard College and Students for Fair Admissions v. University of North Carolina. In the Harvard case, Students for Fair Admissions (“SFFA”), a conservative organization led by Edward Blum, argues that Harvard discriminates against Asian American applicants, thereby violating Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. In both the Harvard College and University of North Carolina cases, SFFA argues that the Supreme Court should overrule Grutter v. Bollinger, a case that cemented the proposition that narrowly tailored admission policies that consider race to achieve diversity are constitutional. On a second level, SFFA argues that both Harvard’s and UNC’s policies are not narrowly tailored due to their rejection of workable race-neutral alternatives.Part I of this Article provides an overview of past litigation concerning affirmative action policies. Part II discusses the two cases Students for Fair
Admissions v. President & Fellows of Harvard College and Students for Fair Admissions v. University of North Carolina that are up for consideration before the Supreme Court. Part III discusses the importance of diversity in the medical workforce, and the potential impact of the SFFA lawsuits on medical practice. Part IV discusses arguments that may become important in these cases, potential
outcomes of this litigation, and what the future of higher education looks like ifrace is prohibited from being considered in university admissions.
Copyright © 2012 by the Trustees of Indiana University. Except as may be expressly provided elsewhere in this publication, permission is hereby granted to produce and distribute copies of individual works from this publication for non-profit education purposes, provided that copies are distributed at or below cost, and that the author, source, and copyright notice are included on each copy. This permission is in addition to rights of reproduction granted under Sections 107, 108, and other provisions of the U.S. Copyright Act and its amendments.
The Indiana Health Law Review (ISSN 1549-3199) is the property of Indiana University and is published two times per year by the Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law, which assumes complete editorial responsibility thereof.