The Supreme Court of the United States on Thursday in a landmark ruling ended affirmative action programs at universities.

In a contradictory twist, one of the voices against affirmative action was that of Judge Clarence Thomas, who has said on previous occasions that he himself benefited from affirmative action by gaining admission to Yale as a student.

Known as “affirmative action,” this policy increased the proportion of black, Hispanic, or Native American students in classrooms, but has always been the target of criticism in conservative circles, who consider it opaque and racist.

The six conservative judges, contrary to the opinion of the other three progressives in court, ruled that procedures for admission to colleges based on skin color or ethnic origin are unconstitutional.

“The student should be treated according to their experience as an individual, not their race,” Chief Justice John Roberts argued.

Conservative magistrates believe that universities are free to take into account an applicant’s personal experience, such as if he has experienced racism, when weighing his application against others who are more academically qualified.

But deciding, especially on the basis of whether you are white or black, is not allowed, that itself is racial discrimination, they said. “Our constitutional history does not tolerate that option,” Roberts added.

In the SFFA v. Harvard and SFFA vs. the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill, submitted by the Student Association for Fair Admission (SFFA), the U.S. Supreme Court decided to strike affirmative action on the grounds that it violated the rights of the Fourteenth Amendment, under the Equal Protection Clause.

According to the Equal Protection Clause, created after the civil war, it is unconstitutional to discriminate on the basis of skin color. Within this clause they also say that the government can accept that a minority group is favored to improve their opportunities, thus creating affirmative action. It focuses on jobs and colleges and has been used for the past 45 years to increase diversity in those spaces.

To vote

The decision was made by the nine justices on the Supreme Court, six of whom are Republicans and three are Democrats.

In the case of SFFA vs. Harvard overturned this policy by a 6 to 2 majority, with one judge abstaining. In the case of SFFA v. the University of North Carolina, the policy was struck down by a 6-to-3 majority.

What does this decision entail?

This decision makes it unconstitutional to take one’s race into account when an applicant applies to a higher education institution. Many universities that used this policy to create a diverse space are now having to find another way to enforce the law.

Harvard, Brown, the University of North Carolina, George Washington and many more universities have already issued statements on this subject. They explained that they will have to review their policies to make sure they comply with this new decree, but they promised to keep looking for ways to preserve diversity.

Disappointment

Many people see this as a loss of progress as this policy has helped many people of color gain opportunities they didn’t have before, and based on information from places where this practice is already banned, many believe this is a decrease in admission to selective colleges for racial minorities in the United States. Concerns have also been raised about what this landmark decision means for affirmative action in other ways, such as the diversity needed for jobs.

Latino groups and leaders described as “disappointing” the United States Supreme Court decision ending affirmative action in college admissions, as it “takes away opportunities” for this minority community to access higher education.

The ruling “undoes decades of progress toward higher education diversification,” lamented Arturo Vargas, executive director of the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials (NALEO).