This past Thursday, the U.S. Supreme Court barred using race as a factor in college admissions, ending a decades-long struggle wherein successive courts have endeavored to square affirmative action with the Constitution\u2019s guarantee that all races be treated equally.<\/span><\/p>\n The first test came in 1978, <\/span>when racial quotas and minority set-asides led to court challenges to affirmative action as a form of \u201c<\/span>reverse discrimination<\/span>.\u201d In the Regents of the University of California v. Bakke\u00a0case,\u00a0 brought by a white man denied admission to the UC Davis School of Medicine, the Supreme Court banned colleges from setting racial quotas but allowed schools to consider <\/span>race as a \u201cfactor\u201d in the admissions process. In 2003, a divided court in the Grutter v. Bollinger case reluctantly allowed colleges to consider race, deeming attracting underrepresented minority groups a \u201ccompelling governmental interest,\u201d but one that was subject to strict scrutiny. At the time, Justice Sandra Day O\u2019Connor noted that affirmative action was a temporary corrective measure, however, stating the expectation that \u201c25 years from now, the use of racial preferences will no longer be necessary.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n This week, the Supreme Court found that Harvard and the University of North Carolina had simply gone too far. <\/span>The two schools\u2019 race-conscious admissions programs failed to abide by the narrow restrictions the court had laid out in previous cases and <\/span>\u201cunavoidably employ race in a negative manner, involve racial stereotyping, and lack meaningful end points.\u201d Chief <\/span>Justice John Roberts concluded, \u201c<\/span>Many universities have for too long wrongly concluded that the touchstone of an individual\u2019s identity is not challenges bested, skills built, or lessons learned, but the color of their skin.\u00a0This Nation\u2019s constitutional history does not tolerate that choice.\u201d In short, <\/span>\u201c<\/span>eliminating racial discrimination means eliminating all of it.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n At the same time, Justice Roberts commented that \u201cnothing\u00a0in\u00a0this opinion should be construed as prohibiting universities from considering an applicant\u2019s discussion of how race affected his or her life, be it through discrimination, inspiration,\u00a0or\u00a0otherwise.\u00a0But . . . universities may not simply establish through application essays or other means the\u00a0regime we hold unlawful today.\u201d He added, \u201cWhat cannot be done\u00a0directly cannot be done indirectly.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n Probably not in any significant way.<\/span><\/p>\n Nine states already ban using race in admissions, including California, Washington, and Florida. Moreover, affirmative action is primarily a burning issue at the most selective colleges, where grades and scores are the dominant assessment criteria, so not all schools will see much change.<\/span><\/p>\n Unlike undergraduate or other more-academic graduate programs, top MBA programs are looking for leaders. In addition to evaluating more-mature candidates, typically with four to six years of experience, they assess a holistic set of factors, looking at the applicants\u2019 professional background, career goals, and outside leadership experience, as well as their grades and test scores. Moreover, the schools are consciously trying to assemble a broadly distributed class of students who represent different jobs and industries, career goals, and socioeconomic and personal backgrounds. So, MBA applicants have ample opportunity to highlight their individuality and differentiate themselves in their essays, recommendations, and outside activities.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\nHow will this decision affect MBA applications?\u00a0\u00a0<\/b><\/h2>\n