The morning of Thursday, June 29th, 2023 was marked by a groundbreaking turn of legal events as the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) ruled on two historic cases: Students for Fair Admissions v. President and Fellows of Harvard College and Students for Fair Admissions v. University of North Carolina. With their ruling, SCOTUS banned the consideration of race in college admissions, thereby overturning decades of precedent supporting affirmative action policies. Indeed, the 1978 case Regents of University of California v. Bakke, the 2003 case Grutter v. Bollinger, and most recently, the 2016 case Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin all concluded that the consideration of race in college admissions is constitutional under the Equal Protection Clause, especially in light of the need to create a diverse educational environment. Regardless, SCOTUS has now ruled to the contrary: Race-conscious admissions in fact violate the Equal Protection Clause and must be prohibited. While students will still be able to identify themselves in their applications to speak about experiences of discrimination and hardship, the spirit of the ruling is nevertheless deeply problematic.

APAMSA has long promoted diversity in higher education. Our policy compendium includes Resolution 40.002 (Improving Campus Diversity Initiatives) and Resolution 40.003 (Defending Race-Conscious Admissions in Undergraduate Medical Education). More directly to the point, we joined the amicus brief written by the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) to support the protection of affirmative action policies in these very trials on which SCOTUS has now ruled.

We unambiguously and unequivocally oppose this SCOTUS ruling. It is a misguided attempt at promoting meritocracy in the midst of immense and complex historical and social inequities, such that to pursue meritocracy while ignoring those inequities is to aim horribly astray. Furthermore, we believe that our patients are best served by a diverse community of talented medical professionals, such that to limit that diversity from entering higher education is to endanger our patients.

The AANHPI community specifically should also strongly oppose this ruling. As Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayer eloquently articulates in her dissent, the AANHPI community needs race-conscious admissions to be fully respected. Asian Americans are victims of historical and current discrimination and stereotyping that require a diverse society, as promoted by affirmative action policies, to be overcome. Moreover, the AANHPI community is not a monolith, and it needs to be seen in its disaggregated and distinct diversity if its members are to be fully seen.

Ultimately, we call for SCOTUS to reconsider its decision and restore affirmative action to this nation’s higher education system. We also urge all other educational, pre-professional, and professional organizations to join us in fighting against this attack on racial equity and diversity.