{"id":155598,"date":"2014-04-25T14:47:31","date_gmt":"2014-04-25T18:47:31","guid":{"rendered":"\/gazette\/?p=155598"},"modified":"2014-04-25T14:47:31","modified_gmt":"2014-04-25T18:47:31","slug":"its-the-who-not-the-what","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/story\/2014\/04\/its-the-who-not-the-what\/","title":{"rendered":"It\u2019s the who, not the what"},"content":{"rendered":"\n\t\n\t
\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\tNation & World\t\t<\/a>\n\t\t\n\t\t

\n\t\tIt\u2019s the who, not the what\t<\/h1>\n\n\t\n\t\n\t
\n\t\t
\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t

\n\t\tJill Anderson\t<\/p>\n\t\t\t

\n\t\t\tHarvard Graduate School of Education\t\t<\/p>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/address>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\n\t\t

\n\t\t\tSupreme Court's approval of Michigan ban on academic affirmative action focused on what voters can do, rather than on the outcome of their actions\t\t<\/h2>\n\t\t\n<\/header>\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\t\t

The U.S. Supreme Court\u2019s decision to uphold the Michigan ban on affirmative action is driving ongoing debates across the country about using race as a factor in the college admissions process, and about what constitutes equal treatment.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe case is quite complex because now, due to a change in state law, affirmative action based on race is impermissible in Michigan, but affirmative action based on athletics, or legacy, or a host of other factors, remains legal,\u201d said James Ryan<\/a>, dean of the Harvard Graduate School of Education. \u201cIs that equal treatment or not? That\u2019s a legitimately hard question to answer.\u201d<\/p>\n

In 2006, Michigan voters amended the state constitution to ban race as a factor in admission to state universities. Civil rights groups had challenged the amendment as a violation of the U.S. Constitution\u2019s equal-protection clause under the 14th Amendment.<\/p>\n

Last Tuesday\u2019s 6-2 Supreme Court ruling (Associate Justice Elena Kagan, a former Harvard Law School dean, recused herself because she had worked on the case while at the U.S. Department of Justice) gives each state\u2019s voters the right to decide whether or not to allow affirmative action as a policy.<\/p>\n

The ruling \u201cstands for the unremarkable proposition that what the Constitution permits, it does not also require,\u201d said Ryan. \u201cSo while race-based affirmative action is permissible under the Equal Protection Clause, it is not required.\u201d<\/p>\n

The court\u2019s opinion, written by Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy, said the case was not about \u201chow the debate about racial preferences should be resolved,\u201d but rather who may resolve it. Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who issued one of the two dissenting votes, wrote a lengthy and critical dissent.<\/p>\n

\u201cFor members of historically marginalized groups, which rely on the federal courts to protect their constitutional rights, the decision can hardly bolster hope for a vision of democracy that preserves for all the right to participate meaningfully and equally in self-government,\u201d she wrote.<\/p>\n

Harvard doctoral candidate Matthew Shaw, the co-author of an amicus curiae<\/i> brief in the influential case Fisher vs. University of Texas at Austin, said the decision validates voter-initiated affirmative action bans in other states, including California, Florida, and Washington.<\/p>\n

\u201cWhether this incites other states to ban affirmative action through voter referenda remains to be seen,\u201d said Shaw.<\/p>\n

But the ruling has done little to quell the debate about the elimination of race as a factor in college admissions.<\/p>\n

\u201cIt\u2019s on a thin edge right now, which from my perspective is a little worrisome,\u201d said HGSE Assistant Professor Natasha Warikoo<\/a>. \u201cThis is part of a larger conversation about this idea that we are living in a post-racial moment. A lot of people think we are and that we shouldn\u2019t need affirmative action, or a way to end inequality is to ignore race. But the reality is that we need to think about what happens when we stop paying attention to race.\u201d<\/p>\n

For example, Warikoo pointed out that California, where considerations of race have been eliminated from college admissions, has already shown a decrease in minority enrollment.<\/p>\n

Reflecting on Sotomayor\u2019s dissent, Warikoo noted that ultimately the issue is about equal protection of racial groups. \u201cYou can still have legacy admissions or athletes can get a leg up, which can increase inequality, but you can\u2019t consider race. It places an undue burden on racial minorities,\u201d she said.<\/p>\n

Shaw said that the ruling creates a university environment where one group can lobby for legacy-sensitive admissions but another seeking race-sensitive admission cannot. \u201cThe university cannot even consider race-sensitive admissions even if the second group convinces the university that it is a good policy,\u201d he said. \u201cThis disadvantage results from majority rule.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cOn a practical level, whether this case ends up being significant outside of Michigan depends entirely on whether other state or local legislatures enact bans on affirmative action in admissions, which is anyone\u2019s guess,\u201d Ryan said.<\/p>\n\n\n<\/div>\n\n\t\t","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The U.S. Supreme Court\u2019s affirmation of Michigan\u2019s ban on using affirmative action in college admissions focused on what voters can do, rather than on the outcome of their actions, says Dean James Ryan of the Harvard Graduate School of Education.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":105622744,"featured_media":155600,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"gz_ga_pageviews":0,"gz_ga_lastupdated":"","document_color_palette":null,"author":"Jill Anderson","affiliation":"Harvard Graduate School of Education","_category_override":"","_yoast_wpseo_primary_category":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[1378],"tags":[3141,15753,18736,23987,34606],"gazette-formats":[],"series":[],"class_list":["post-155598","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-nation-world","tag-affirmative-action","tag-harvard-graduate-school-of-education","tag-james-ryan","tag-michigan","tag-u-s-supreme-court"],"yoast_head":"\nIt\u2019s the who, not the what — Harvard Gazette<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"The U.S. Supreme Court\u2019s affirmation of Michigan\u2019s ban on using affirmative action in college admissions focused on what voters can do, rather than on the outcome of their actions, says Dean James Ryan of the Harvard Graduate School of Education.\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/story\/2014\/04\/its-the-who-not-the-what\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"It\u2019s the who, not the what — Harvard Gazette\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"The U.S. Supreme Court\u2019s affirmation of Michigan\u2019s ban on using affirmative action in college admissions focused on what voters can do, rather than on the outcome of their actions, says Dean James Ryan of the Harvard Graduate School of Education.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/story\/2014\/04\/its-the-who-not-the-what\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Harvard Gazette\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2014-04-25T18:47:31+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/wp-content\/uploads\/2014\/04\/061013_ryan_james_348_605.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"605\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"403\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"harvardgazette\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/story\/2014\/04\/its-the-who-not-the-what\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/story\/2014\/04\/its-the-who-not-the-what\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"harvardgazette\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/#\/schema\/person\/78d028cf624923e92682268709ffbc4b\"},\"headline\":\"It\u2019s the who, not the what\",\"datePublished\":\"2014-04-25T18:47:31+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/story\/2014\/04\/its-the-who-not-the-what\/\"},\"wordCount\":657,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/#organization\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/story\/2014\/04\/its-the-who-not-the-what\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2014\/04\/061013_ryan_james_348_605.jpg\",\"keywords\":[\"Affirmative action\",\"Harvard Graduate School of Education\",\"James Ryan\",\"Michigan\",\"U.S. Supreme Court\"],\"articleSection\":[\"Nation & World\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"copyrightYear\":\"2014\",\"copyrightHolder\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/#organization\"}},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/story\/2014\/04\/its-the-who-not-the-what\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/story\/2014\/04\/its-the-who-not-the-what\/\",\"name\":\"It\u2019s the who, not the what — Harvard Gazette\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/story\/2014\/04\/its-the-who-not-the-what\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/story\/2014\/04\/its-the-who-not-the-what\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2014\/04\/061013_ryan_james_348_605.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2014-04-25T18:47:31+00:00\",\"description\":\"The U.S. Supreme Court\u2019s affirmation of Michigan\u2019s ban on using affirmative action in college admissions focused on what voters can do, rather than on the outcome of their actions, says Dean James Ryan of the Harvard Graduate School of Education.\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/story\/2014\/04\/its-the-who-not-the-what\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/story\/2014\/04\/its-the-who-not-the-what\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2014\/04\/061013_ryan_james_348_605.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2014\/04\/061013_ryan_james_348_605.jpg\",\"width\":605,\"height\":403},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/\",\"name\":\"Harvard Gazette\",\"description\":\"Official news from Harvard University covering innovation in teaching, learning, and research\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/#organization\"},\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/#organization\",\"name\":\"The Harvard Gazette\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/12\/Harvard_Gazette_logo.svg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/12\/Harvard_Gazette_logo.svg\",\"width\":164,\"height\":64,\"caption\":\"The Harvard Gazette\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"}},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/#\/schema\/person\/78d028cf624923e92682268709ffbc4b\",\"name\":\"harvardgazette\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"It\u2019s the who, not the what — Harvard Gazette","description":"The U.S. Supreme Court\u2019s affirmation of Michigan\u2019s ban on using affirmative action in college admissions focused on what voters can do, rather than on the outcome of their actions, says Dean James Ryan of the Harvard Graduate School of Education.","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/story\/2014\/04\/its-the-who-not-the-what\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"It\u2019s the who, not the what — Harvard Gazette","og_description":"The U.S. Supreme Court\u2019s affirmation of Michigan\u2019s ban on using affirmative action in college admissions focused on what voters can do, rather than on the outcome of their actions, says Dean James Ryan of the Harvard Graduate School of Education.","og_url":"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/story\/2014\/04\/its-the-who-not-the-what\/","og_site_name":"Harvard Gazette","article_published_time":"2014-04-25T18:47:31+00:00","og_image":[{"width":605,"height":403,"url":"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/wp-content\/uploads\/2014\/04\/061013_ryan_james_348_605.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"harvardgazette","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/story\/2014\/04\/its-the-who-not-the-what\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/story\/2014\/04\/its-the-who-not-the-what\/"},"author":{"name":"harvardgazette","@id":"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/#\/schema\/person\/78d028cf624923e92682268709ffbc4b"},"headline":"It\u2019s the who, not the what","datePublished":"2014-04-25T18:47:31+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/story\/2014\/04\/its-the-who-not-the-what\/"},"wordCount":657,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/#organization"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/story\/2014\/04\/its-the-who-not-the-what\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2014\/04\/061013_ryan_james_348_605.jpg","keywords":["Affirmative action","Harvard Graduate School of Education","James Ryan","Michigan","U.S. Supreme Court"],"articleSection":["Nation & World"],"inLanguage":"en-US","copyrightYear":"2014","copyrightHolder":{"@id":"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/#organization"}},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/story\/2014\/04\/its-the-who-not-the-what\/","url":"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/story\/2014\/04\/its-the-who-not-the-what\/","name":"It\u2019s the who, not the what — Harvard Gazette","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/story\/2014\/04\/its-the-who-not-the-what\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/story\/2014\/04\/its-the-who-not-the-what\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2014\/04\/061013_ryan_james_348_605.jpg","datePublished":"2014-04-25T18:47:31+00:00","description":"The U.S. Supreme Court\u2019s affirmation of Michigan\u2019s ban on using affirmative action in college admissions focused on what voters can do, rather than on the outcome of their actions, says Dean James Ryan of the Harvard Graduate School of Education.","inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/story\/2014\/04\/its-the-who-not-the-what\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/story\/2014\/04\/its-the-who-not-the-what\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2014\/04\/061013_ryan_james_348_605.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2014\/04\/061013_ryan_james_348_605.jpg","width":605,"height":403},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/#website","url":"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/","name":"Harvard Gazette","description":"Official news from Harvard University covering innovation in teaching, learning, and research","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/#organization"},"potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/#organization","name":"The Harvard Gazette","url":"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/12\/Harvard_Gazette_logo.svg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/12\/Harvard_Gazette_logo.svg","width":164,"height":64,"caption":"The Harvard Gazette"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"}},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/#\/schema\/person\/78d028cf624923e92682268709ffbc4b","name":"harvardgazette"}]}},"parsely":{"version":"1.1.0","canonical_url":"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/story\/2014\/04\/its-the-who-not-the-what\/","smart_links":{"inbound":0,"outbound":0},"traffic_boost_suggestions_count":0,"meta":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@type":"NewsArticle","headline":"It\u2019s the who, not the what","url":"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/story\/2014\/04\/its-the-who-not-the-what\/","mainEntityOfPage":{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/story\/2014\/04\/its-the-who-not-the-what\/"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2014\/04\/061013_ryan_james_348_605.jpg?w=150","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","url":"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2014\/04\/061013_ryan_james_348_605.jpg"},"articleSection":"Nation & World","author":[{"@type":"Person","name":"harvardgazette"}],"creator":["harvardgazette"],"publisher":{"@type":"Organization","name":"Harvard Gazette","logo":"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/12\/Harvard_Gazette_logo.svg"},"keywords":["affirmative action","harvard graduate school of education","james ryan","michigan","u.s. supreme court"],"dateCreated":"2014-04-25T18:47:31Z","datePublished":"2014-04-25T18:47:31Z","dateModified":"2014-04-25T18:47:31Z"},"rendered":"<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"wp-parsely-metadata\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@type\":\"NewsArticle\",\"headline\":\"It\\u2019s the who, not the what\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/news.harvard.edu\\\/gazette\\\/story\\\/2014\\\/04\\\/its-the-who-not-the-what\\\/\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/news.harvard.edu\\\/gazette\\\/story\\\/2014\\\/04\\\/its-the-who-not-the-what\\\/\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/news.harvard.edu\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2014\\\/04\\\/061013_ryan_james_348_605.jpg?w=150\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/news.harvard.edu\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2014\\\/04\\\/061013_ryan_james_348_605.jpg\"},\"articleSection\":\"Nation & World\",\"author\":[{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"name\":\"harvardgazette\"}],\"creator\":[\"harvardgazette\"],\"publisher\":{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"name\":\"Harvard Gazette\",\"logo\":\"https:\\\/\\\/news.harvard.edu\\\/gazette\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2023\\\/12\\\/Harvard_Gazette_logo.svg\"},\"keywords\":[\"affirmative action\",\"harvard graduate school of education\",\"james ryan\",\"michigan\",\"u.s. supreme court\"],\"dateCreated\":\"2014-04-25T18:47:31Z\",\"datePublished\":\"2014-04-25T18:47:31Z\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-04-25T18:47:31Z\"}<\/script>","tracker_url":"https:\/\/cdn.parsely.com\/keys\/news.harvard.edu\/p.js"},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2014\/04\/061013_ryan_james_348_605.jpg","has_blocks":true,"block_data":{"0":{"blockName":"harvard-gazette\/article-header","attrs":{"blockColorPalette":"","coloredHeading":"","creditText":"","displayDetails":"","displayTitle":"","categoryId":1378,"mediaAlt":"","mediaCaption":"","mediaId":"","mediaSize":"","mediaType":"","mediaUrl":"","poster":"","title":"It\u2019s the who, not the what","subheading":"Supreme Court's approval of Michigan ban on academic affirmative action focused on what voters can do, rather than on the outcome of their actions","className":"is-style-square","backgroundFixed":false,"backgroundTone":"light","centeredImage":false,"coloredBackground":false,"displayOverlay":true,"fadeInText":false,"isAmbient":false,"mediaHeight":0,"mediaLength":"","mediaPosition":"","mediaWidth":0,"posterText":"","titleAbove":false,"useUncroppedImage":false,"lock":[],"metadata":[]},"innerBlocks":[],"innerHTML":"","innerContent":[],"rendered":"<header\n\tclass=\"wp-block-harvard-gazette-article-header alignfull article-header is-style-square has-light-background has-colored-heading\"\n\tstyle=\" \"\n>\n\t\n\t<div class=\"article-header__content\">\n\t\t\t<a\n\t\t\tclass=\"article-header__category\"\n\t\t\thref=\"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/section\/nation-world\/\"\n\t\t>\n\t\t\tNation & World\t\t<\/a>\n\t\t\n\t\t<h1 class=\"article-header__title wp-block-heading \">\n\t\tIt\u2019s the who, not the what\t<\/h1>\n\n\t\n\t\n\t<div class=\"article-header__meta\">\n\t\t<div class=\"wp-block-post-author\">\n\t\t\t<address class=\"wp-block-post-author__content\">\n\t\t\t\t\t<p class=\"author wp-block-post-author__name\">\n\t\tJill Anderson\t<\/p>\n\t\t\t<p class=\"wp-block-post-author__byline\">\n\t\t\tHarvard Graduate School of Education\t\t<\/p>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/address>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\n\t\t<time class=\"article-header__date\" datetime=\"2014-04-25\">\n\t\t\tApril 25, 2014\t\t<\/time>\n\n\t\t<span class=\"article-header__reading-time\">\n\t\t\t4 min read\t\t<\/span>\n\t<\/div>\n\n\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\n\t\t\t<h2 class=\"article-header__subheading wp-block-heading\">\n\t\t\tSupreme Court's approval of Michigan ban on academic affirmative action focused on what voters can do, rather than on the outcome of their actions\t\t<\/h2>\n\t\t\n<\/header>\n"},"2":{"blockName":"core\/group","attrs":{"templateLock":false,"metadata":{"name":"Article content"},"align":"wide","layout":{"type":"constrained","justifyContent":"center"},"tagName":"div","lock":[],"className":"","style":[],"backgroundColor":"","textColor":"","gradient":"","fontSize":"","fontFamily":"","borderColor":"","ariaLabel":"","anchor":""},"innerBlocks":[{"blockName":"core\/freeform","attrs":{"content":"","lock":[],"metadata":[]},"innerBlocks":[],"innerHTML":"\n\t\t<p>The U.S. Supreme Court\u2019s decision to uphold the Michigan ban on affirmative action is driving ongoing debates across the country about using race as a factor in the college admissions process, and about what constitutes equal treatment.<\/p>\n<p>\u201cThe case is quite complex because now, due to a change in state law, affirmative action based on race is impermissible in Michigan, but affirmative action based on athletics, or legacy, or a host of other factors, remains legal,\u201d said <a href=\"http:\/\/www.gse.harvard.edu\/directory\/faculty\/faculty-detail\/?fc=103862&flt=r&sub=all\">James Ryan<\/a>, dean of the Harvard Graduate School of Education. \u201cIs that equal treatment or not? That\u2019s a legitimately hard question to answer.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>In 2006, Michigan voters amended the state constitution to ban race as a factor in admission to state universities. Civil rights groups had challenged the amendment as a violation of the U.S. Constitution\u2019s equal-protection clause under the 14th Amendment.<\/p>\n<p>Last Tuesday\u2019s 6-2 Supreme Court ruling (Associate Justice Elena Kagan, a former Harvard Law School dean, recused herself because she had worked on the case while at the U.S. Department of Justice) gives each state\u2019s voters the right to decide whether or not to allow affirmative action as a policy.<\/p>\n<p>The ruling \u201cstands for the unremarkable proposition that what the Constitution permits, it does not also require,\u201d said Ryan. \u201cSo while race-based affirmative action is permissible under the Equal Protection Clause, it is not required.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>The court\u2019s opinion, written by Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy, said the case was not about \u201chow the debate about racial preferences should be resolved,\u201d but rather who may resolve it. Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who issued one of the two dissenting votes, wrote a lengthy and critical dissent.<\/p>\n<p>\u201cFor members of historically marginalized groups, which rely on the federal courts to protect their constitutional rights, the decision can hardly bolster hope for a vision of democracy that preserves for all the right to participate meaningfully and equally in self-government,\u201d she wrote.<\/p>\n<p>Harvard doctoral candidate Matthew Shaw, the co-author of an <i>amicus curiae<\/i> brief in the influential case Fisher vs. University of Texas at Austin, said the decision validates voter-initiated affirmative action bans in other states, including California, Florida, and Washington.<\/p>\n<p>\u201cWhether this incites other states to ban affirmative action through voter referenda remains to be seen,\u201d said Shaw.<\/p>\n<p>But the ruling has done little to quell the debate about the elimination of race as a factor in college admissions.<\/p>\n<p>\u201cIt\u2019s on a thin edge right now, which from my perspective is a little worrisome,\u201d said HGSE Assistant Professor <a href=\"http:\/\/www.gse.harvard.edu\/directory\/faculty\/faculty-detail\/?fc=84125&flt=w&sub=all\">Natasha Warikoo<\/a>. \u201cThis is part of a larger conversation about this idea that we are living in a post-racial moment. A lot of people think we are and that we shouldn\u2019t need affirmative action, or a way to end inequality is to ignore race. But the reality is that we need to think about what happens when we stop paying attention to race.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>For example, Warikoo pointed out that California, where considerations of race have been eliminated from college admissions, has already shown a decrease in minority enrollment.<\/p>\n<p>Reflecting on Sotomayor\u2019s dissent, Warikoo noted that ultimately the issue is about equal protection of racial groups. \u201cYou can still have legacy admissions or athletes can get a leg up, which can increase inequality, but you can\u2019t consider race. It places an undue burden on racial minorities,\u201d she said.<\/p>\n<p>Shaw said that the ruling creates a university environment where one group can lobby for legacy-sensitive admissions but another seeking race-sensitive admission cannot. \u201cThe university cannot even consider race-sensitive admissions even if the second group convinces the university that it is a good policy,\u201d he said. \u201cThis disadvantage results from majority rule.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>\u201cOn a practical level, whether this case ends up being significant outside of Michigan depends entirely on whether other state or local legislatures enact bans on affirmative action in admissions, which is anyone\u2019s guess,\u201d Ryan said.<\/p>\n","innerContent":["\n\t\t<p>The U.S. Supreme Court\u2019s decision to uphold the Michigan ban on affirmative action is driving ongoing debates across the country about using race as a factor in the college admissions process, and about what constitutes equal treatment.<\/p>\n<p>\u201cThe case is quite complex because now, due to a change in state law, affirmative action based on race is impermissible in Michigan, but affirmative action based on athletics, or legacy, or a host of other factors, remains legal,\u201d said <a href=\"http:\/\/www.gse.harvard.edu\/directory\/faculty\/faculty-detail\/?fc=103862&flt=r&sub=all\">James Ryan<\/a>, dean of the Harvard Graduate School of Education. \u201cIs that equal treatment or not? That\u2019s a legitimately hard question to answer.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>In 2006, Michigan voters amended the state constitution to ban race as a factor in admission to state universities. Civil rights groups had challenged the amendment as a violation of the U.S. Constitution\u2019s equal-protection clause under the 14th Amendment.<\/p>\n<p>Last Tuesday\u2019s 6-2 Supreme Court ruling (Associate Justice Elena Kagan, a former Harvard Law School dean, recused herself because she had worked on the case while at the U.S. Department of Justice) gives each state\u2019s voters the right to decide whether or not to allow affirmative action as a policy.<\/p>\n<p>The ruling \u201cstands for the unremarkable proposition that what the Constitution permits, it does not also require,\u201d said Ryan. \u201cSo while race-based affirmative action is permissible under the Equal Protection Clause, it is not required.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>The court\u2019s opinion, written by Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy, said the case was not about \u201chow the debate about racial preferences should be resolved,\u201d but rather who may resolve it. Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who issued one of the two dissenting votes, wrote a lengthy and critical dissent.<\/p>\n<p>\u201cFor members of historically marginalized groups, which rely on the federal courts to protect their constitutional rights, the decision can hardly bolster hope for a vision of democracy that preserves for all the right to participate meaningfully and equally in self-government,\u201d she wrote.<\/p>\n<p>Harvard doctoral candidate Matthew Shaw, the co-author of an <i>amicus curiae<\/i> brief in the influential case Fisher vs. University of Texas at Austin, said the decision validates voter-initiated affirmative action bans in other states, including California, Florida, and Washington.<\/p>\n<p>\u201cWhether this incites other states to ban affirmative action through voter referenda remains to be seen,\u201d said Shaw.<\/p>\n<p>But the ruling has done little to quell the debate about the elimination of race as a factor in college admissions.<\/p>\n<p>\u201cIt\u2019s on a thin edge right now, which from my perspective is a little worrisome,\u201d said HGSE Assistant Professor <a href=\"http:\/\/www.gse.harvard.edu\/directory\/faculty\/faculty-detail\/?fc=84125&flt=w&sub=all\">Natasha Warikoo<\/a>. \u201cThis is part of a larger conversation about this idea that we are living in a post-racial moment. A lot of people think we are and that we shouldn\u2019t need affirmative action, or a way to end inequality is to ignore race. But the reality is that we need to think about what happens when we stop paying attention to race.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>For example, Warikoo pointed out that California, where considerations of race have been eliminated from college admissions, has already shown a decrease in minority enrollment.<\/p>\n<p>Reflecting on Sotomayor\u2019s dissent, Warikoo noted that ultimately the issue is about equal protection of racial groups. \u201cYou can still have legacy admissions or athletes can get a leg up, which can increase inequality, but you can\u2019t consider race. It places an undue burden on racial minorities,\u201d she said.<\/p>\n<p>Shaw said that the ruling creates a university environment where one group can lobby for legacy-sensitive admissions but another seeking race-sensitive admission cannot. \u201cThe university cannot even consider race-sensitive admissions even if the second group convinces the university that it is a good policy,\u201d he said. \u201cThis disadvantage results from majority rule.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>\u201cOn a practical level, whether this case ends up being significant outside of Michigan depends entirely on whether other state or local legislatures enact bans on affirmative action in admissions, which is anyone\u2019s guess,\u201d Ryan said.<\/p>\n"],"rendered":"\n\t\t<p>The U.S. Supreme Court\u2019s decision to uphold the Michigan ban on affirmative action is driving ongoing debates across the country about using race as a factor in the college admissions process, and about what constitutes equal treatment.<\/p>\n<p>\u201cThe case is quite complex because now, due to a change in state law, affirmative action based on race is impermissible in Michigan, but affirmative action based on athletics, or legacy, or a host of other factors, remains legal,\u201d said <a href=\"http:\/\/www.gse.harvard.edu\/directory\/faculty\/faculty-detail\/?fc=103862&flt=r&sub=all\">James Ryan<\/a>, dean of the Harvard Graduate School of Education. \u201cIs that equal treatment or not? That\u2019s a legitimately hard question to answer.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>In 2006, Michigan voters amended the state constitution to ban race as a factor in admission to state universities. Civil rights groups had challenged the amendment as a violation of the U.S. Constitution\u2019s equal-protection clause under the 14th Amendment.<\/p>\n<p>Last Tuesday\u2019s 6-2 Supreme Court ruling (Associate Justice Elena Kagan, a former Harvard Law School dean, recused herself because she had worked on the case while at the U.S. Department of Justice) gives each state\u2019s voters the right to decide whether or not to allow affirmative action as a policy.<\/p>\n<p>The ruling \u201cstands for the unremarkable proposition that what the Constitution permits, it does not also require,\u201d said Ryan. \u201cSo while race-based affirmative action is permissible under the Equal Protection Clause, it is not required.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>The court\u2019s opinion, written by Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy, said the case was not about \u201chow the debate about racial preferences should be resolved,\u201d but rather who may resolve it. Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who issued one of the two dissenting votes, wrote a lengthy and critical dissent.<\/p>\n<p>\u201cFor members of historically marginalized groups, which rely on the federal courts to protect their constitutional rights, the decision can hardly bolster hope for a vision of democracy that preserves for all the right to participate meaningfully and equally in self-government,\u201d she wrote.<\/p>\n<p>Harvard doctoral candidate Matthew Shaw, the co-author of an <i>amicus curiae<\/i> brief in the influential case Fisher vs. University of Texas at Austin, said the decision validates voter-initiated affirmative action bans in other states, including California, Florida, and Washington.<\/p>\n<p>\u201cWhether this incites other states to ban affirmative action through voter referenda remains to be seen,\u201d said Shaw.<\/p>\n<p>But the ruling has done little to quell the debate about the elimination of race as a factor in college admissions.<\/p>\n<p>\u201cIt\u2019s on a thin edge right now, which from my perspective is a little worrisome,\u201d said HGSE Assistant Professor <a href=\"http:\/\/www.gse.harvard.edu\/directory\/faculty\/faculty-detail\/?fc=84125&flt=w&sub=all\">Natasha Warikoo<\/a>. \u201cThis is part of a larger conversation about this idea that we are living in a post-racial moment. A lot of people think we are and that we shouldn\u2019t need affirmative action, or a way to end inequality is to ignore race. But the reality is that we need to think about what happens when we stop paying attention to race.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>For example, Warikoo pointed out that California, where considerations of race have been eliminated from college admissions, has already shown a decrease in minority enrollment.<\/p>\n<p>Reflecting on Sotomayor\u2019s dissent, Warikoo noted that ultimately the issue is about equal protection of racial groups. \u201cYou can still have legacy admissions or athletes can get a leg up, which can increase inequality, but you can\u2019t consider race. It places an undue burden on racial minorities,\u201d she said.<\/p>\n<p>Shaw said that the ruling creates a university environment where one group can lobby for legacy-sensitive admissions but another seeking race-sensitive admission cannot. \u201cThe university cannot even consider race-sensitive admissions even if the second group convinces the university that it is a good policy,\u201d he said. \u201cThis disadvantage results from majority rule.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>\u201cOn a practical level, whether this case ends up being significant outside of Michigan depends entirely on whether other state or local legislatures enact bans on affirmative action in admissions, which is anyone\u2019s guess,\u201d Ryan said.<\/p>\n"}],"innerHTML":"\n<div class=\"wp-block-group alignwide\">\n\n\n\n<\/div>\n","innerContent":["\n<div class=\"wp-block-group alignwide\">\n\n","\n\n<\/div>\n"],"rendered":"\n<div class=\"wp-block-group alignwide has-global-padding is-content-justification-center is-layout-constrained wp-block-group-is-layout-constrained\">\n\n\n\t\t<p>The U.S. Supreme Court\u2019s decision to uphold the Michigan ban on affirmative action is driving ongoing debates across the country about using race as a factor in the college admissions process, and about what constitutes equal treatment.<\/p>\n<p>\u201cThe case is quite complex because now, due to a change in state law, affirmative action based on race is impermissible in Michigan, but affirmative action based on athletics, or legacy, or a host of other factors, remains legal,\u201d said <a href=\"http:\/\/www.gse.harvard.edu\/directory\/faculty\/faculty-detail\/?fc=103862&flt=r&sub=all\">James Ryan<\/a>, dean of the Harvard Graduate School of Education. \u201cIs that equal treatment or not? That\u2019s a legitimately hard question to answer.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>In 2006, Michigan voters amended the state constitution to ban race as a factor in admission to state universities. Civil rights groups had challenged the amendment as a violation of the U.S. Constitution\u2019s equal-protection clause under the 14th Amendment.<\/p>\n<p>Last Tuesday\u2019s 6-2 Supreme Court ruling (Associate Justice Elena Kagan, a former Harvard Law School dean, recused herself because she had worked on the case while at the U.S. Department of Justice) gives each state\u2019s voters the right to decide whether or not to allow affirmative action as a policy.<\/p>\n<p>The ruling \u201cstands for the unremarkable proposition that what the Constitution permits, it does not also require,\u201d said Ryan. \u201cSo while race-based affirmative action is permissible under the Equal Protection Clause, it is not required.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>The court\u2019s opinion, written by Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy, said the case was not about \u201chow the debate about racial preferences should be resolved,\u201d but rather who may resolve it. Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who issued one of the two dissenting votes, wrote a lengthy and critical dissent.<\/p>\n<p>\u201cFor members of historically marginalized groups, which rely on the federal courts to protect their constitutional rights, the decision can hardly bolster hope for a vision of democracy that preserves for all the right to participate meaningfully and equally in self-government,\u201d she wrote.<\/p>\n<p>Harvard doctoral candidate Matthew Shaw, the co-author of an <i>amicus curiae<\/i> brief in the influential case Fisher vs. University of Texas at Austin, said the decision validates voter-initiated affirmative action bans in other states, including California, Florida, and Washington.<\/p>\n<p>\u201cWhether this incites other states to ban affirmative action through voter referenda remains to be seen,\u201d said Shaw.<\/p>\n<p>But the ruling has done little to quell the debate about the elimination of race as a factor in college admissions.<\/p>\n<p>\u201cIt\u2019s on a thin edge right now, which from my perspective is a little worrisome,\u201d said HGSE Assistant Professor <a href=\"http:\/\/www.gse.harvard.edu\/directory\/faculty\/faculty-detail\/?fc=84125&flt=w&sub=all\">Natasha Warikoo<\/a>. \u201cThis is part of a larger conversation about this idea that we are living in a post-racial moment. A lot of people think we are and that we shouldn\u2019t need affirmative action, or a way to end inequality is to ignore race. But the reality is that we need to think about what happens when we stop paying attention to race.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>For example, Warikoo pointed out that California, where considerations of race have been eliminated from college admissions, has already shown a decrease in minority enrollment.<\/p>\n<p>Reflecting on Sotomayor\u2019s dissent, Warikoo noted that ultimately the issue is about equal protection of racial groups. \u201cYou can still have legacy admissions or athletes can get a leg up, which can increase inequality, but you can\u2019t consider race. It places an undue burden on racial minorities,\u201d she said.<\/p>\n<p>Shaw said that the ruling creates a university environment where one group can lobby for legacy-sensitive admissions but another seeking race-sensitive admission cannot. \u201cThe university cannot even consider race-sensitive admissions even if the second group convinces the university that it is a good policy,\u201d he said. \u201cThis disadvantage results from majority rule.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>\u201cOn a practical level, whether this case ends up being significant outside of Michigan depends entirely on whether other state or local legislatures enact bans on affirmative action in admissions, which is anyone\u2019s guess,\u201d Ryan said.<\/p>\n\n\n<\/div>\n"}},"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":141915,"url":"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/story\/2013\/06\/affirmative-action-policies-remain\/","url_meta":{"origin":155598,"position":0},"title":"Affirmative action policies remain","author":"harvardgazette","date":"June 24, 2013","format":false,"excerpt":"The U.S. Supreme Court returned the question of affirmative action in college admissions to the lower courts for reconsideration.","rel":"","context":"In "Nation & World"","block_context":{"text":"Nation & World","link":"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/section\/nation-world\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2013\/06\/supreme_court2.jpg?resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2013\/06\/supreme_court2.jpg?resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2013\/06\/supreme_court2.jpg?resize=525%2C300 1.5x"},"classes":[]},{"id":120585,"url":"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/story\/2012\/10\/an-issue-thats-bigger-in-texas\/","url_meta":{"origin":155598,"position":1},"title":"An issue that\u2019s bigger in Texas","author":"harvardgazette","date":"October 22, 2012","format":false,"excerpt":"During an Askwith Forum discussion on college affirmative action, highlighted by the pending Supreme Court case of Fisher v. University of Texas, the speakers said that any decision should include as its backdrop a sense of that Southern state\u2019s history.","rel":"","context":"In "Nation & World"","block_context":{"text":"Nation & World","link":"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/section\/nation-world\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2012\/10\/101512_fisher_126_605a.jpg?resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2012\/10\/101512_fisher_126_605a.jpg?resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2012\/10\/101512_fisher_126_605a.jpg?resize=525%2C300 1.5x"},"classes":[]},{"id":361348,"url":"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/story\/2023\/06\/harvard-united-in-resolve-in-face-of-supreme-courts-admissions-ruling\/","url_meta":{"origin":155598,"position":2},"title":"Harvard united in resolve in face of Supreme Court\u2019s admissions ruling","author":"harvardgazette","date":"June 29, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"University \u201cremains steadfast\u201d in commitment to campus that reflects wide range of backgrounds and experiences.","rel":"","context":"In "Nation & World"","block_context":{"text":"Nation & World","link":"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/section\/nation-world\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Exterior of Supreme Court.","src":"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/06\/APSupremeCourt.jpg?resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/06\/APSupremeCourt.jpg?resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/06\/APSupremeCourt.jpg?resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/06\/APSupremeCourt.jpg?resize=700%2C400 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":350179,"url":"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/story\/2022\/10\/lessons-from-michigan-california-in-admissions-case\/","url_meta":{"origin":155598,"position":3},"title":"Michigan, California speak from experience in briefs supporting Harvard","author":"gazettebeckycoleman","date":"October 31, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"Schools have struggled to maintain campus diversity since bans on race-conscious admissions, say officials in briefs supporting Harvard.","rel":"","context":"In "Nation & World"","block_context":{"text":"Nation & World","link":"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/section\/nation-world\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"UCLA and University of Michigan students protest affirmative action bans in 1996 and 2006.","src":"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/10\/20221031_scotus_ucalmich.jpg?resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/10\/20221031_scotus_ucalmich.jpg?resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/10\/20221031_scotus_ucalmich.jpg?resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/10\/20221031_scotus_ucalmich.jpg?resize=700%2C400 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":361567,"url":"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/story\/2023\/07\/about-100-rally-to-voice-opposition-to-supreme-court-admissions-case-ruling\/","url_meta":{"origin":155598,"position":4},"title":"About 100 rally to voice opposition to Supreme Court admissions case ruling","author":"harvardgazette","date":"July 6, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"College and Summer School students, alumni, and parents gather in support of campus diversity across nation.","rel":"","context":"In "Campus & Community"","block_context":{"text":"Campus & Community","link":"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/section\/campus-community\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"ollege and Summer School students, alumni, and parents, campus rally.","src":"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/07\/070123_SCOTUS_demo_146.jpg?resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/07\/070123_SCOTUS_demo_146.jpg?resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/07\/070123_SCOTUS_demo_146.jpg?resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/07\/070123_SCOTUS_demo_146.jpg?resize=700%2C400 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":115576,"url":"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/story\/2012\/08\/taking-a-stand-on-diversity\/","url_meta":{"origin":155598,"position":5},"title":"Taking a stand on diversity","author":"harvardgazette","date":"August 14, 2012","format":false,"excerpt":"After the Supreme Court announced it will hear a major case on affirmative action in October, Harvard joined 13 other universities to file a friend-of-the-court brief supporting considerations of race in college admissions.","rel":"","context":"In "Nation & World"","block_context":{"text":"Nation & World","link":"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/section\/nation-world\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2012\/08\/051412_features_195.jpg?resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2012\/08\/051412_features_195.jpg?resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2012\/08\/051412_features_195.jpg?resize=525%2C300 1.5x"},"classes":[]}],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/155598","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/105622744"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=155598"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/155598\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/155600"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=155598"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=155598"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=155598"},{"taxonomy":"format","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/gazette-formats?post=155598"},{"taxonomy":"series","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/series?post=155598"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}