Harvard’s most famous Native American scholar Elizabeth Warren rages at Supreme Court decision to strike down affirmative action

Progressive Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) slammed the US Supreme Court’s decision to strike down affirmative action by ruling on cases involving the University of North Carolina and Harvard College.

Warren, Harvard’s most famous Native American scholar posted on Twitter, “An extremist Supreme Court has once again reversed decades of settled law, rolled back the march toward racial justice, and narrowed educational opportunity for all.”



“I won't stop fighting for young people with big dreams who deserve an equal chance to pursue their future.”

Warren, who previously claimed American Indian ancestry as far back as 1986 when she applied for the State Bar of Texas, was previously a professor at Harvard Law School.

Warren later apologized to the Cherokee Nation in 2019 after a DNA test showed she was as little as 1/1,024 Native American.

In 2012, when Warren first ran for the US Senate, her opponent Scott Brown, alleged that she had claimed Native American ancestry to use as an advantage while seeking employment. Though Warren and Harvard denied that her fabricated heritage gave her any advantages in her education or career, her then-employer Harvard Law School from 1995 to 2004 listed Warren as a Native American in federal affirmative action forms.

The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 on Thursday to strike down affirmative action in colleges and universities as unconstitutional, violating the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.

The ruling came as part of two cases, Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. University of North Carolina and Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President & Fellows of Harvard College. 

According to the decision, in Grutter vs Bollinger, which allowed the use of a person’s race as a factor in college admissions, "imposed one final limit on race-based admissions programs: At some point, the Court held, they must end."

Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor said at the time of the Grutter ruling that "25 years from now, the use of racial preferences will no longer be necessary to further" a school's desire for a diverse student body.

The majority opinion written by Chief Justice John Roberts stated, "Twenty years have passed since Grutter, with no end to race-based college admissions in sight. But the Court has permitted race-based college admissions only within the confines of narrow restrictions: such admissions
programs must comply with strict scrutiny, may never use race as a stereotype or negative, and must — at some point — end. Respondents’ admissions systems fail each of these criteria and must therefore be invalidated under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.”

The court added that the schools "fail to operate their race-based admissions programs in a manner that is 'sufficiently measurable to permit judicial [review]' under the rubric of strict scrutiny."

Roberts stated, "Universities may define their missions as they see fit. The Constitution defines ours. Courts may not license separating students on the basis of race without an exceedingly persuasive justification that is measurable and concrete enough to permit judicial review."

According to the decision, race-based admissions at Harvard led to a greater than 11 percent decline in the number of Asian American students admitted.

The cases were brought by Students for Fair Admissions, who asked the court to overturn a 2003 ruling, Grutter v. Bollinger, which allowed ethnic and racial identities to play a part in the acceptance of students to colleges and universities. 

The SFFA argued that the ruling in Grutter allowing racial considerations in university admissions was "egregiously wrong," that it has led to "significant negative consequences," and that the previous ruling is essentially outmoded, nearly 20 years later.