The ruling comes following a lawsuit filed in
2014 by the group Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA)
, which argued UNC used race in its admissions process and that it intentionally discriminated against certain members based on race and other factors
在诉讼中, the group accused UNC of “employing racial preferences in undergraduate admissions where there are available race-neutral alternatives capable of achieving student body diversity,” 和 “employing an undergraduate admissions policy that uses race as a factor in admissions.”
In Monday’s ruling, Judge Loretta Biggs said UNC didn’t discriminate and said the university could continue to use race as a factor in its undergraduate admission process.
“UNC has met its burden of demonstrating with clarity that its undergraduate admissions program withstands strict scrutiny and is therefore constitutionally permissible,” Biggs wrote, adding that the university “engages in a highly individualized, holistic admissions program.”
“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 wrote.
根据 UNC website
, this year’s incoming class of
5,630 students included
65% who identified as White or Caucasian
, 21% as Asian or Asian American
, 12% as Black or African American and
10% who said they were Hispanic
, Latina or Latino
CNN has reached out to UNC and the SFFA for comment.
在六月, the Supreme Court effectively postponed action on another SFFA challenge
, also filed in
2014 and this time against Harvard University
The challengers contend the Ivy League campus holds Asian Americans to a higher standard and essentially caps their numbers. The school counters that it sets no limits for Asian American students and that all applicants are considered individually based on many characteristics.
The high court issued an order asking the Biden Department of Justice to offer its views on the case, which for the nine justices’ own internal politics, means they postponed having to make a decision on whether and when to hear the controversy.