Federal Court Rules In Favor of UNC in Use of Race in Admissions

Many observers are waiting for the United States Supreme Court to decide whether to delve again into college admissions with a pending case out of Harvard University in which Asian and white students claim discrimination. We have been following that case for a couple years. However, there is a new ruling out of North Carolina that could present another opportunity for the Court to revisit the issue. Judge Loretta C. Biggs of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina just ruled that UNC can use race criteria to guarantee a “critical mass” of minority students in its classes. Both cases could offer the Court an opportunity to clarify its conflicted affirmative action rulings on college admissions.

In her decision, Judge Biggs rejected the claim of Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA) that UNC engaged in unconstitutional discrimination under its 2005 diversity plan for “critical masses of underrepresented populations.” Biggs said that it was not necessary for UNC to define the term critical mass beyond the desire for the educational benefits of a diverse student body. It was not a quota for how many students of particular races should be admitted and “race is not a defining feature.”

Judge Biggs further found that UNC “has engaged in ongoing, serious, good faith considerations of workable race neutral alternatives in an effort to find options to its race conscious process in admissions.”

The case will now go to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.

The case is Students for Fair Admission v. University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, No. 14-954 (M.D.N.C.).

Here is the opinion: SFFA v. UNC

 

 

58 thoughts on “Federal Court Rules In Favor of UNC in Use of Race in Admissions”

  1. “THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE WITHOUT DIFFERENTIATION”

    Differentiation between people and/or differentiation between persons is patently unconstitutional.
    _____________________________________________________________________________

    The manifest tenor of the Constitution is that there shall be no differentiation between the people and no differentiation between persons.

    “Congress shall make no law respecting…the right of the people…” to assemble, matriculate or secure employment.

    “Congress shall make no law respecting…the right of [a person]…” to assemble, matriculate or secure employment.

    The Constitution does not differentiate between people or persons.

    Congress shall make no law that differentiates between people or persons.

    Affirmative action is differentiation between people and persons.

    Public universities shall make no admission that differentiates between people or persons.

    Applicants to academic institutions must be qualified academically.

    Private universities enjoy the right to private property which includes the right to choose admittees.

    Public universities must strictly adhere to the Constitution which does not provide for differentiation between people or persons.
    ____________________________________________________________________________________________________

    1st Amendment

    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
    _______________________________________________

    “[Private property is] that dominion which one man claims and exercises over the external things of the world, in exclusion of every other individual.”

    – James Madison
    _____________

    “…courts…must…declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void.”

    “…men…do…what their powers do not authorize, [and] what they forbid.”

    “[A] limited Constitution … can be preserved in practice no other way than through the medium of courts of justice, whose duty it must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void. Without this, all the reservations of particular rights or privileges would amount to nothing … To deny this would be to affirm … that men acting by virtue of powers may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.”

    – Alexander Hamilton

Leave a Reply