SFFA’s complaint against UNC-Chapel Hill followed a 2013 Supreme Court opinion in Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin. In that opinion, the court reaffirmed its long-standing position that any school’s use of race or ethnicity in admissions is subject to “strict scrutiny” and must be narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling state interest. In Fisher, the court held that strict scrutiny “imposes on the university the ultimate burden of demonstrating, before turning to racial classifications, that available, workable race-neutral alternatives do not suffice.”
The opinion says a university must demonstrate its admissions processes ensure that each applicant is evaluated as an individual and not in a way that makes race or ethnicity the defining feature of the application.
SFFA contends that UNC-Chapel Hill and “most competitive universities” do not comply with the Supreme Court’s instructions.
But the facts and evidence show that the University’s admissions practices are completely consistent with the letter and the spirit of the law. UNC-Chapel Hill’s admissions policy also is consistent with the UNC System admissions policy and regulations that guide all UNC campuses.
We believe a holistic admissions approach that evaluates candidates on a variety of factors helps ensure a vibrant and diverse learning environment that enhances the experience of every person in our campus community.
SFFA seeks no monetary damages from UNC-Chapel Hill. SFFA aims to force a change in our admissions policy and to overturn existing U.S. Supreme Court precedent.