The Impact of SFFA on Racial Meaning

In Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard (SFFA), the Supreme Court prohibited the consideration of race in college and university admissions. Applying a case-selection method to in-depth, semi-structured interviews, I engage college advising professionals to learn whether their understanding of race was affected by the decision. Despite the role that law can play inconstructing racial meaning-making, respondents perceived the SFFA decision not as a legal decision informing their meaning of race, but as a strategically political and ideologically bankrupt decision that did not change their understanding of the relevancy or value of race in admissions. Characterizing the Court as lacking in relevant expertise, respondents defended against the Court’s intrusion into admissions, resisting the Court’s regulation, and emphasizing their own status as non-legal professionals interpreting law in their area of expertise. These findings deepen our understanding of meaning-making regarding Supreme Court decisions and extend legal consciousness literatures to mid-status professionals.