UNC-Chapel Hill can keep using race in its admissions process: federal judge

“While no student can or should be admitted to this University, or any other, based solely on race, because race is so interwoven in every aspect of the lived experience of minority students, to ignore it, reduce its importance and measure it only by statistical models as SFFA has done, misses important context to include obscuring racial barriers and obstacles that have been faced, overcome and are yet to be overcome,” Biggs said.

The case stems from a 2014 lawsuit against UNC by Students for Fair Admissions, an anti-affirmative action group led by activist Edward Blum. The lawsuit claims UNC unfairly prioritizes Black and Hispanic students over white and Asian-American students when considering applications. The group is made up of thousands of rejected applicants, prospective students and parents who want race and ethnicity taken out of the college admissions process.

The group is behind similar affirmative action lawsuits against the University of Texas at Austin and Harvard University. The courts have ruled in the universities’ favor in both of those cases, but Harvard could end up in the Supreme Court.

In North Carolina, Biggs ruled that UNC’s use of race in its admissions process “stands strict scrutiny and is therefore constitutionally permissible.”

“This decision makes clear the University’s holistic admissions approach is lawful. We evaluate each student in a deliberate and thoughtful way, appreciating individual strengths, talents and contributions to a vibrant campus community where students from all backgrounds can excel and thrive,” Associate Vice Chancellor Beth Keith said in an emailed statement.

UNC has defended its admissions practices, saying a student’s race is important, but not a dominant factor, as it is considered alongside GPA, test scores, class rank and essays. And considering an applicant’s race helps improve diversity on campus and enhances the academic experience. The university has also said it does not have racial quotas or formulas.

SFFA has argued that UNC uses race as a primary factor and in a mechanical way, giving African-American and Hispanic applicants an advantage over their peers. It also said UNC did not make enough of an effort to find workable alternatives to diversify campus.

The group did not respond to a request for comment Monday night. Blum told The Wall Street Journal that the group will appeal the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals and to the Supreme Court, if necessary.

If the case reaches the Supreme Court, Blum told The New York Times that they would “ask the justices to end these unfair and unconstitutional race-based admissions policies.”

While Biggs welcomes UNC-CH’s pursuit of diversity in its student body and the educational outcomes that come from it, she said the university is “far from creating the diverse environment described in its Mission Statement.”

The university’s diversity efforts have improved in recent years, but the school’s approach to race has been defined by “discriminatory and obstructionist policies ... for the vast majority of its existence,” Biggs said.

She noted that minority students report being “confronted with racial epithets, as well as feeling isolated, ostracized, stereotyped and viewed as tokens” at UNC-CH. And evidence shows that, as a whole, “underrepresented minorities are admitted at lower rates than their white and Asian American counterparts, and those with the highest grades and SAT scores are denied twice as often as their white and Asian American peers,” Biggs said.

In her ruling, Biggs quoted one of UNC-CH’s own experts in this case, saying “the work associated with diversity and inclusion is complicated and challenging and is an ongoing iterative process.”

And while the university’s current admissions program can’t ignore minority students’ lived experiences, Biggs said, “UNC continues to have much work to do.”