What happens when a single swing opinion steers higher education for decades—and then the Court changes course? We unpack the legal journey from Bakke’s fragmented ruling to the 2023 Students for Fair Admissions decision, tracing how Justice Powell’s narrow vision of “holistic” diversity took root, evolved in Grutter and Gratz, and ultimately ran into a stricter equal protection and Title VI jurisprudence. Along the way, we break down why quotas were off-limits, how individualized review became the gold standard, and where the latest majority says universities went too far.

With Dr. Beienberg, we revisit the key legal hooks—strict scrutiny, compelling interest, and narrow tailoring—and the uneasy alliance between academic freedom and constitutional limits. We examine the arguments that shaped the field: diversity as an educational benefit versus remediation for generalized discrimination; the role of federal funding under Title VI; and the competing opinions from O’Connor, Roberts, Sotomayor, Jackson, Thomas, and Gorsuch. The Asian American claims at the center of SFFA make the human stakes concrete, raising hard questions about zero-sum admissions, opaque ratings, and what “holistic” truly means when opportunities are finite.

Looking forward, we map practical, race-neutral strategies that universities can pursue without running afoul of the Court: expanding class sizes, rethinking testing, leveraging percent plans, strengthening need-based aid, recruiting across underserved regions, and valuing first-generation and socioeconomic indicators. The message is clear: if diversity remains a goal, institutions must prove that their means are lawful, measurable, and tightly fitted to that end. Subscribe, share, and tell us where you stand on the future of admissions—what solutions would you trust to balance fairness, opportunity, and excellence?

Check Out the Civic Literacy Curriculum!

School of Civic and Economic Thought and Leadership

Center for American Civics