Wall Street Journal

Jason Riley hails MIT’s decision to reinstate standardized test requirements for admissions but warns that continued use of racial preferences will compromise MIT’s standing and, eventually, U.S. competitiveness.

Wall Street Journal

An MIT alum applauds MIT’s reinstatement of standardized test admission requirements but bemoans the fact that “the school has not done anything to end the racially discriminatory admissions policies it implemented in the 1990s.”

FAIR Perspectives

In the FAIR Perspectives podcast episode People are People, Dr. Marilyn Singleton discusses affirmative action.

Bloomberg Law

“Potential conflicts abound in the litigation against Harvard.”

City Journal

The authors explore the use of diversity goals to justify race-conscious admissions, claiming that arguments for diversity are a smokescreen for reparations.

City Journal

VerBruggen argues that even if SCOTUS bans affirmative action, he thinks colleges "will find ways...to produce the desired demographic result, or by giving admissions officers the discretion to produce that result through the sum of many small decisions."

Wall Street Journal

Jason Riley draws a straight line from selective high schools to Harvard, citing backlash in San Francisco, New York and Virginia to admissions policies that "try to undo history by favoring some groups over others.”

The Glenn Show

Glenn Loury and John McWhorter discuss meritocracy vs. diversity, what's lost when we focus on racial preferences, and the possibility of "re-segregation" if SCOTUS shuts down affirmative action.

NPR’s The Argument

In this debate between FAIR Advisor Ian Rowe (MBA ‘93) and Natash Warikoo, Rowe argues that affirmative action is "a back end Band-Aid" and that substandard K-12 education is the real issue.

Boston Globe

lya Somin argues that SCOTUS “should make clear that anti-Asian discrimination is no different from that against other groups.”

“It is not clear how discrimination against one set of members of a racial group can be remedied by discrimination in favor of an entirely different set of people years later, whose only connection to the victims is that they are members of the same race.”

New York Times

FAIR Advisor and Columbia professor John McWhorter speaks of his daughters, “shudder[ing]…at the thought of…[an] admissions committee…finding their being biracial…the most interesting thing about them. Or even, frankly, interesting at all.”

RealClear Politics

Harvard alum Charles Lipsom (AM ‘74 PhD ‘76) argues that “[universities] have no intention of snoozing if the Supreme Court rules their current admissions policies are illegal.”

New York Times

Caspian Kang claims that "when you apply the normative definition of discrimination...the evidence against Harvard…is, frankly, overwhelming." He also asks, "who, exactly, constitutes the Black and Latino student populations," raises the issue of wealth disparities, and notes how a demonstrated commitment to one's ethnicity among minority applicants positively impacts admission.

Reasonable Disagreements

In discussing the upcoming case, Epstein is forthright in his assessment: "Harvard...thinks that it should do whatever it wants because it's one of these regnant institutions...[but] their evidentiary record was simply terrible on this."

The Crimson

Provides legal experts' opinions on the case. If SFFA prevails, Lawrence Tribe (HLS '62) predicts that “universities as intelligent as Harvard will find ways of dealing with the decision [against them] without radically altering their composition, but they will have to be more subtle...”

City Journal

Provides a brief summary of the case and legal precedent, arguing that “the time for a change in direction is long overdue.”

Wall Street Journal

Riley writes that racial preferences “are not only legally dubious but counterproductive.” He also argues that schools have gone too far—instead of race being “one of several factors…it has become a major factor.”

The Hill

Alan Dershowitz (HLS professor emeritus) reviews how the justices will vote and what factors they may take into account. He also discusses the idea of evading the ruling, if a “floor” for some groups necessitates a ceiling for others, and the opportunity a ruling against affirmative action could bring.

Wall Street Journal

The WSJ Editorial Board argues that the case is “a chance for the court to correct its own mistakes” and return to “Chief Justice Roberts’s formulation in a 2007 case: ‘The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.”

Glenn Loury

Glenn Loury delivers what he later calls his affirmative action “amicus brief” in an impassioned talk at Holy Cross in 2019.