California Democrats blast Supreme Court despite state restriction on race-aware admissions

California Democrats condemned the Supreme Court’s restriction of race-conscious admissions at colleges and universities Thursday. But the state’s voters banned race-aware admissions in public higher education in the late 1990s.

“The Supreme Court’s conservative majority has yet again upended longstanding precedent, changing the law just because they now have the votes to do so, without any care for the costs to society and students around the country,” Gov. Gavin Newsom said in a statement.

Prop. 209, passed by voters in 1996, barred weighing race, gender and other factors in hiring, contracting and admissions. The measure covers virtually all public institutions, including governmental bodies and the University of California and California State University systems. Efforts to repeal at least parts of the measure repeatedly failed.

Asked about a “response plan” for the Supreme Court ruling Thursday, Newsom said, “It’s more difficult because of Prop. 209.” The governor added that the impacts of Prop. 209 were “profound and consequential.”

Rep. Barbara Lee, D-Oakland, who argued against Prop. 209, said Thursday that “since the policy went into effect, the share of Black, Latino, and Native American students has fallen significantly. This structural racism has deprived brilliant students of color of the chance to study at some of the greatest academic institutions in the world.”

California was the first state to ban race-conscious considerations for entry in public institutions, leaving minimal exceptions as a way to meet previous federal standards. Washington state followed suit in 1998, but eradicated the policy in 2022. Seven other states now similarly restrict considering race in hiring or education.

“California has long recognized the value of diversity in institutions of higher learning,” California Attorney General Rob Bonta said in a statement. “While the ruling narrows the scope of permissible consideration of race in admissions, it does not diminish our resolve to pursue policies and practices that ensure equal access and opportunities for all students.”

A Supreme Court decision from two separate cases released Thursday affects private universities and colleges in California, such as Stanford University, Caltech and the Claremont colleges near Pomona. Prop. 209 still governs public universities and colleges.

Rather than considering an applicant’s race as a part of admissions, the Court ruled, school officials can weigh an individual’s experience with race and discrimination through essays, interviews or other methods.

The court ruled 6-3 in a case against the University of North Carolina and 6-2 against Harvard University along ideological lines. It decided admissions based on affirmative action violated the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and, thus, Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, altering decades of precedent.

UNC, a public university, must follow both the equal protection clause, which prevents civil bodies from denying people equal protection under the law, and the 1964 Civil Rights Act’s Title VI. As a private university, Harvard is only bound by Title VI, which outlaws racial discrimination by institutions that receive federal money.

Republicans applaud the ruling

A group representing students and current and future applicants claimed that race-conscious admissions at the universities discriminated against Asian and white students. Students for Fair Admissions, Inc., claimed that schools should not employ affirmative action policies over race-neutral rules because of potential changes to campus demographics if there’s no proof that it would harm the school’s academic quality.

The universities contended that diversity improves academic experiences.

Still, Chief Justice John G. Roberts in the majority opinion wrote that “nothing in this opinion should be construed as prohibiting universities from considering an applicant’s discussion of how race affected his or her life, be it through discrimination, inspiration, or otherwise.”

Public universities started applying affirmative action in the late 1960s as a means to correct historical hindrances to students from minority backgrounds, improve campus diversity and reduce inequality. The practice originated with former President John F. Kennedy, who issued a 1961 executive order directing government agencies to ensure equal opportunity in employment.

“I remember when I was a student at San Fernando High School wondering if I would have the same opportunities in higher education because of who I was and where I grew up,” Sen. Alex Padilla said in a statement Thursday.

“Limiting colleges and universities’ ability to consider race in the admissions process will reduce access and opportunities for students of color who are just as smart, qualified, and deserving, but who haven’t benefited from the same resources or support,” the California Democrat added, pointing to the effects of Prop. 209.

California Republicans applauded the Court’s ruling Thursday, pointing to California’s current ban.

“Hiring and college admissions decisions should be based on each individual’s qualifications, not their race,” Assembly Republican Leader James Gallagher, R-Yuba City, said in a statement. “California has led the way by rejecting affirmative action and the Supreme Court has rightfully given everyone an equal opportunity at higher education.”

The White House said colleges should consider “the financial means of a student or their family; where a student grew up and went to high school; and personal experiences of hardship or discrimination, including racial discrimination, that a student may have faced.”

President Joe Biden condemned the Court’s decision from the White House Thursday. In response to one reporter’s question, he said, “This is not a normal Court.”

“I know today’s Court decision is a severe disappointment to so many people, including me. But we cannot let the decision be a permanent setback for the country,” he said from the podium.

The Sacramento Bee’s Lindsey Holden contributed to this story.