Implications for Private Employers ofthe Supreme Court's Harvard Decision Banning Race-Based Affrmative Action in College Admissions

In this article, the authors explain that, overall, the U.S. Supreme Court's Harvard decision has injected a new element of uncer-tainty into the future of Title VII litigation, as well as best practices for employers in achieving workplace diversity equity and inclusion goals. (Harvard)1 that it is unconstitutional (under the Constitution's Equal Protection Clause, as to public institutions) and a violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (as applicable to private institutions accepting federal financial assistance) for colleges and universities to consider race as a factor in the admissions process. Notably, University of California chancellors submitted an amicus brief4 to the Supreme Court in support of Harvard and UNC's admissions programs including race as a factor in admission, explaining that alternative race-neutral policies have proven inadequate to address the sharp decline in enrollment of Black and Latino students that followed the passage of Proposition 209. AFFINITY GROUPS These groups, for example women's or Black affnity groups, generally function to provide community, support, mentorship, promote the development and retention of talent, and host trainings and events related to issues faced by the group. Because these groups often receive ear-marked funding within organizations, and provide various training and sponsorship opportunities, employers should be mindful of the cave-ats discussed above.