This Note argues that the Supreme Court’s shifting attitude towards race-conscious school admissions can be best understood by making sense of the Court’s gradually elevated requirements of individuality in school admissions. Specifically, this note argues that (1) treating each applicant as an individual has been a constitutionally necessary, but not constitutionally sufficient, requirement since Bakke; (2) the individuality requirement is intricately intertwined with the compelling-interest and narrow-tailoring requirements of strict scrutiny; and (3) race-conscious school admissions survived Bakke and Grutter, but were overruled in SFFA because the SFFA Court had such an elevated requirement of individuality that it rendered it impossible for the race-conscious admissions policies of Harvard and UNC to pass strict scrutiny. This Note will first introduce the Supreme Court’s reasoning in deciding SFFA as well as Bakke and Grutter, the two landmark precedents that led to SFFA. Then, the author will survey the relevant philosophical texts on individuality and its relationship to stereotype and discrimination. Following that, the author will analyze the Supreme Court’s decisions in Bakke, Grutter, and SFFA through the lens of individuality, and explain why the Court’s transformed conceptualization of individuality is the real reason behind the SFFA decision to overrule affirmative action.
To read this Note, please click here: Treating Each Applicant as an Individual in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard and its Key Precedents.